Table 4.

Relative Errors of Estimated Volume versus Gold-Standard Volume

Feature	Relative Errors from Models
	B-Scan Count	Maximum Height	B-Scan Count × Maximum Height
CME
Group 1 (n = 13)	49.4%	20.4%	23.7%
Group 2 (n = 13)	35.7%	13.7%	16.6%
SRF
Group 1 (n = 13)	22.9%	21.9%	11.8%
Group 2 (n = 13)	22.3%	29.8%	18.6%
PED
Group 1 (n = 13)	29.2%	47.5%	28.4%
Group 2 (n = 13)	15.6%	18.7%	11.8%
Average (n = 26)
CME	42.6%	17.1%	20.2%
SRF	22.6%	25.9%	15.2%
PED	22.4%	33.1%	20.1%

To determine the predictive power of our analysis, we used a random split sample approach.

Models were built on one group and applied to the other. The absolute errors of each model were averaged and compared with the averaged gold-standard volumes of the respective features (CME, SRF, PED). The resulting relative errors are shown individually for both groups and as the averaged value of the two.