Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023 Jul 14;117(5):1145–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.07.004

Table 3:

Summary of accuracy statistics comparing participant volumes to expert volume

Graphical Equation Without RSIrs With RSIrs
# of Complete Misses across all participants graphic file with name nihms-1984457-t0001.jpg 134/762 (17.6%) 18/842 (2.1%)
# of participants with at least 1 Complete Miss 40 (91%) 13 (30%)
% of each participant’s attempts resulting in a Complete Miss, median (IQR) 13.6% (9.1 – 23.6%) 0.0% (0.0 – 4.3%)
Conformal Number, median (IQR) graphic file with name nihms-1984457-t0002.jpg 0.26 (0.06 – 0.43) 0.45 (0.35 – 0.55)
Dice Coefficient, median (IQR) graphic file with name nihms-1984457-t0003.jpg 0.48 (0.18 – 0.64) 0.66 (0.55 – 0.73)
Maximum Distance to Expert, median (IQR) graphic file with name nihms-1984457-t0004.jpg 13.7mm (8.1 – 23.4) 9.17mm (6.3 – 14.9)
% Overlap with Expert, median (IQR) graphic file with name nihms-1984457-t0005.jpg 40.8% (12.6 – 64.0%) 77.6% (58.9 – 89.5%)

Summary of metrics evaluating participant volumes relative to the expert volume. 44 participants generated 762 volumes on conventional MRI without RSIrs and 842 with RSIrs available for analysis (there were two more cases with RSIrs than without RSIrs).