Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2023 Nov 7;18(1):56–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2023.10.009

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

(A) Results of percent diameter stenosis quantification for 34 lesions from EID (left) and PCD (right) with line connecting each individual lesion. (B) Box and whisker plot of results of percent diameter stenosis quantification for lesions measured with EID (dashed) and PCD (solid) with outliers shown. (C) Results of Bland-Altman analysis comparing EID-CT to PCD-CT for percent diameter stenosis measurements, demonstrating a negative bias of percent diameter values as PCD-CT decreased the diameter stenosis as compared to EID-CT (95% confidence interval LOA) (EID=energy-integrating-detector; PCD=photon-counting-detector, LOA = limits of agreement).