. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2012 Apr 6;69(2):391–401. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24262

Table 3.

Comparison of the bias (mean difference) between HBW-TE_IN and LBW-TE_+π/2 forward flow measurements in the aAo vs. PA, aAo vs RPA+LPA, and PA vs. RPA+LPA in normal subjects (N=10).

	HBW-TE_IN	LBW-TE_+π/2	^* P-Value
aAo vs. PA	4.9 ± 2.4	9.8 ± 6.4	0.01
aAo vs. RPA+LPA	1.3 ± 0.8	4.0 ± 3.2	0.03
PA vs. RPA+LPA	5.4 ± 3.1	7.4 ± 5.9	0.25
^†PA vs. RPA+LPA	2.0 ± 0.3	5.0 ± 2.9	0.03

Data is expressed as mean ± standard deviation in mL.

^†

Excludes seven vessels that contained minimal perivascular fat.

P<0.05 show a significant difference in the measurement bias indicating HBW-TE_IN is less susceptible to chemical shift flow errors compared to LBW-TE_+π/2.