Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Sep;28(3):773–777. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21417

A) Direct comparison of end-diastolic LV volume (EDV), end-systolic LV volume (ESV), and end-diastolic myocardial volume (EDMV) for the 2D free-breathing and 2D BH methods, in all 11 subjects. B) Bland Altman analysis, showing bias and ± 2 standard deviations. C) The extent of disagreement between the 2D BH and FB methods, plotted for studies with registered vs. misregistered BH images. Greater disagreement was observed for studies with misregistration, but significance was only found for myocardial volume.

A) Direct comparison of end-diastolic LV volume (EDV), end-systolic LV volume (ESV), and end-diastolic myocardial volume (EDMV) for the 2D free-breathing and 2D BH methods, in all 11 subjects. B) Bland Altman analysis, showing bias and ± 2 standard deviations. C) The extent of disagreement between the 2D BH and FB methods, plotted for studies with registered vs. misregistered BH images. Greater disagreement was observed for studies with misregistration, but significance was only found for myocardial volume.