Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: NMR Biomed. 2012 Jan 29;25(3):476–488. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1804

Table 1.

Estimated accuracy and precision of T2s and associated weights expressed as percent error

Condition T2,a
(ms)		 T2,b
(ms)		 T2,c
(ms)		 wa
(%)		 wb
(%)		 wc
(%)
PGA Input value 0.07 ---- 896.87 0.05 ---- 0.95
Accuracy (%) 11.34 ---- −0.58 −15.60 ---- 0.86
Precision (%) 0.99 ---- 0.00 1.98 ---- 0.11
1 Week Input Value 0.06 88.93 673.91 0.06 0.04 0.89
Accuracy (%) 10.66 12.11 −0.43 −18.94 9.15 1.29
Precision (%) 3.94 1.24 0.02 7.72 1.01 0.22
5 Week Input Value 0.06 94.35 479.65 0.06 0.06 0.86
Accuracy (%) 14.18 3.23 −0.21 −25.04 6.69 1.29
Precision (%) 1.71 0.20 0.01 3.15 0.34 0.22

Each sample condition was simulated with 100 noise realizations based on the average experimental SNR of each group and using the appropriate group average T2s and associated weights as input values. Accuracy is defined as percent error. Precision is reported as the coefficient of variation (CV), defined as the standard deviation over 100 noise realizations divided by the corresponding input parameter value x 100. Reliability was 100% for all groups. Input simulation values for the T2 components in ms and their (% magnetization) were as follows. PGA scaffold: Ca = 0.07 (5), Cc = 896.87 (95), SNR = 12,204; 1 Week: Ca = 0.06 (6), Cb = 88.93 (4), Cc = 673.91 (89), SNR = 11,348; and 5 Week: Ca = 0.06 (6), Cb = 94.35 (6), Cc = 479.65 (86), SNR = 15,060.