Table 3.
Comparison of correlation and agreement analyses in similar studies
| Study | N | Scanner | Software PET | Software MR | # gates | EDV | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Slope | Pearson's r | Bias (%) | LoA amplitude (%) | ||||||
| Khorsand 2003 | 20 | PET | In-house | Phillips | 8 | 0.6 | 0.92 | 10.1 | 95.4 |
| Schäfer 2004 | 42 | PET | QGS | Phillips | 8 | 1.0 | 0.94 | 0.3 | 44.3 |
| 4D-MSPECT | 1.0 | 0.94 | − 1.1 | 46.6 | |||||
| Slart 2004 | 38 | PET/CT | QGS | MASS | 16 | 0.9 | 0.91 | 15.0 | 56.0 |
| Li 2014 | 89 | PET/CT | QGS | MASS | 8 | 0.9 | 0.92 | 12.7 | 65.9 |
| 4D-MSPECT | 1.1 | 0.93 | 1.0 | 66.6 | |||||
| Lücke 2017 | 29 | PET/MR | Corridor4DM | cmr42 | 16 | 1.0 | 0.95 | 16.5 | 62.3 |
| Yao 2019 | 76 | PET/CT | QGS | MASS | 8 | 0.8 | 0.91 | 28.4 | 70.6 |
| ECTB | 0.8 | 0.86 | 25.5 | 88.4 | |||||
| 4D-MSPECT | 0.9 | 0.89 | 18.5 | 80.2 | |||||
| Our study STD | 30 | PET/MR | Munich Heart | Munich Heart | 8 | 1.2 | 0.75 | 12.8 | 67.8 |
| Our study STD-BR | 1.2 | 0.81 | 9.5 | 59.3 | |||||
| Our study FW | 1.3 | 0.80 | 9.4 | 63.9 | |||||
| Study | ESV | EF | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear Slope | Pearson's r | Bias (%) | LoA amplitude (%) | Linear Slope | Pearson's r | Bias (%) | LoA amplitude (%) | |
| Khorsand 2003 | 0.6 | 0.93 | 9.8 | 153.9 | 0.6 | 0.85 | 6.5 | 85.2 |
| Schäfer 2004 | 1.0 | 0.95 | − 5.9 | 25.5 | 0.7 | 0.94 | 11.4 | 51.4 |
| 1.0 | 0.95 | − 4.2 | 55.1 | 0.7 | 0.90 | 2.9 | 57.1 | |
| Slart 2004 | 0.9 | 0.94 | 13.7 | 58.2 | 1.0 | 0.96 | 10.3 | 26.1 |
| Li 2014 | 0.9 | 0.92 | 11.7 | 83.4 | 0.9 | 0.76 | 0.3 | 115.3 |
| 1.0 | 0.94 | − 4.4 | 80.7 | 0.7 | 0.75 | 12.5 | 108.6 | |
| Lücke 2017 | 1.2 | 0.97 | 19.6 | 104.8 | 1.0 | 0.91 | − 4.1 | 68.8 |
| Yao 2019 | 0.9 | 0.93 | 28.1 | 77.8 | 1.0 | 0.79 | − 3.6 | 113.8 |
| 0.7 | 0.85 | 29.6 | 108.0 | 0.7 | 0.62 | − 12.0 | 142.5 | |
| 0.9 | 0.91 | 18.1 | 92.6 | 0.8 | 0.76 | 0.7 | 105.8 | |
| Our study STD | 1.0 | 0.92 | 2.0 | 65.1 | 0.7 | 0.79 | 13.6 | 70.6 |
| Our study STD-BR | 1.0 | 0.92 | 4.3 | 67.1 | 0.8 | 0.91 | 5.0 | 49.2 |
| Our study FW | 1.1 | 0.92 | 0.6 | 69.9 | 0.7 | 0.87 | 8.8 | 57.8 |
FDG-PET- and MR-based values of EDV, ESV, and EF of N number of subjects were obtained using PET/MR, PET/CT, PET, and MR systems, different MR and PET software, and 8 or 16 gates. MR and PET presented high correlations, variable biases, and wide limits of agreements (LoA) among the studies