Table 6.
Subjective evaluation of the half-dose method
| Ventricle | Corticomedullary boundary | Extramedullary space | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | |
| N (%) | 5 | 24 (85.7%) | 24 (85.7%) | 1 (3.6%) | 20 (71.4%) | 14 (50%) | 23 (82.1%) |
| 4 | 4 (4.3%) | 4 (4.3%) | 24 (85.7) | 8 (28.6%) | 14 (50%) | 5 (17.9%) | |
| 3 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (10.7) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Cranium 2D | Cranium 3D | ||||||
| Scale | Reader1 | Reader2 | Reader1 | Reder2 | |||
| 5 | 28 (100%) | 27 (96.4%) | 28 (100%) | 27 (96.4%) | |||
| 4 | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.6%) | |||
| 3 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||
| 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |||
5—very well evaluable (as good as FDM), 4—well evaluable (slightly inferior to FDM), 3—evaluable (inferior to FDM), 2—difficult to evaluate, 1—not possible to evaluate
Reader 1: 9 years of radiology experience; Reader 2: 33 years of radiology experience)