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

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Oct 23;37(4):917–927. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23884

Table 1.

Linear regression results for the agreement of SAT and IMAT area estimates between the automatic segmentation approach and manual contouring (ground truth) in the calf and the thigh.

Measurement	Tissue	Parameter	Estimate	P-value	R2
SAT	calf	Slope	0.955 ± 0.130	0.130	0.98
		Intercept	1.142 ± 0.468	0.468
IMAT	calf	Slope	0.774 ± 0.024	0.024^a	0.75
		Intercept	0.771 ± 0.163	0.163
SAT	thigh	Slope	1.043 ± 0.145	0.145	0.98
		Intercept	−7.479 ± 0.721	0.721
IMAT	thigh	Slope	0.954 ± 0.327	0.327	0.96
		Intercept	1.335 ± 0.010	0.010^b

Significance is determined from a two-tailed Student’s t-test with null hypothesis slope =1 and intercept = 0

Slope is significantly different from one (α =0.05)

Intercept is significantly different from zero (α = 0.05)