Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2013 Jan 24;71:207–215. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.015

Table 1.

Comparison of regional analysis method

IO
overall %
agreement		 SKM
overall %
agreement		 IO
Positive
agreement		 SKM
Positive
agreement		 IO
Negative
agreement		 SKM
Negative
agreement
Regional:
Manual
vs.
Manual 		MAN-rDVR
vs.
MAN-rSUVR50-70 		59/62
(95.2%)
κ=0.876		 61/62
(98.4%)
κ=0.957		 30/33*
(90.9%)		 30/31*
(96.8%)		 88/91*
(96.7%)		 92/93*
(98.9%)
MAN-rDVR
vs.
MAN-rSUVR40-60 		54/62
(87.1%)
κ=0.710		 61/62
(98.4%)
κ=0.957		 32/40
(80.0%)		 30/31
(96.8%)		 76/84
(90.5%)		 92/93
(98.9%)
MAN-rSUVR50-70
vs.
MAN-rSUVR40-60 		53/62
(85.5%)
κ=0.677		 62/62
(100%)
κ=1.0		 32/41
(78.0%)		 32/32
100%) 		74/83
(89.2%)		 92/92
(100%)
Regional:
Manual
vs.
Template 		MAN-rDVR
vs.
Tem-rDVR 		53/62
(85.5%)
κ=0.668		 58/62
(93.5%)
κ=0.832		 30/39
(76.9%)		 28/32
(87.5%)		 76/85
(89.4%)		 88/92
(95.7%)
MAN-rSUVR50-70
vs.
Tem-rSUVR50-70 		42/62
(67.7%)
κ=0.390		 52/62
(83.9%)
κ=0.597		 32/52
(61.5%)		 24/34
(70.6%)		 52/72
(72.2%)		 80/90
(88.9%)
MAN-rSUVR40-60
vs.
Tem-rSUVR40-60 		57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.826		 55/62
(88.7%)
κ=0.699		 40/45
(88.9%)		 24/31
(77.4%)		 74/79
(93.7%)		 86/93
(92.5%)
Regional:
Template
vs.
Template 		Tem-rDVR
vs.
Tem-rSUVR50-70 		48/62
(77.4%)
κ=0.563		 55/62
(88.7%)
κ=0.722		 44/58
(75.9%)		 28/35
(80.0%)		 52/66
(78.8%)		 82/89
(92.1%)
Tem-rDVR
vs.
Tem-rSUVR40-60 		57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.822		 58/62
(93.5%)
κ=0.832		 38/43
(88.4%)		 28/32
(87.5%)		 76/81
(93.8%)		 88/92
(95.7%)
Tem-rSUVR50-70
vs.
Tem-rSUVR40-60 		48/62
(77.4%)
κ=0.566		 59/62
(95.2%)
κ=0.881		 42/56
(75.0%)		 32/35
(91.4%)		 54/68
(79.4%)		 86/89
(96.6%)
Regional
Template
vs.
Global
Template 		Tem-rDVR
vs.
Tem-gDVR 		50/62
(80.6%)
κ=0.536		 57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.766		 22/34
(64.7%)		 22/27
(81.5%)		 78/90
(86.7%)		 92/97
(94.8%)
Tem-rSUVR50-70
vs.
Tem-gSUVR50-70 		32/62
(51.6%)
κ=0.127		 54/62
(87.1%)
κ=0.656		 10/40
(25.0%)		 22/30
(73.3%)		 54/84
(64.3%)		 86/94
(91.5%)
Tem-rSUVR40-60
vs.
Tem-gSUVR40-60 		47/62
(75.8%)
κ=0.346		 57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.766		 12/27
(44.4%)		 22/27
(81.5%)		 82/97
(84.5%)		 92/97
(94.8%)
Global:
Template
vs.
Template 		Tem-gDVR
vs.
Tem-gSUVR50-70 		56/62
(90.3%)
κ=0.664		 62/62
(100%)
κ=1.0		 10/16
(62.5%)		 22/22
(100%) 		102/108
(94.4%)		 102/102
(100%)
Tem-gDVR
vs.
Tem-gSUVR40-60 		57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.664		 62/62
(100%)
κ=1.0		 12/17
(70.6%)		 22/22
(100%) 		102/107
(95.3%)		 102/102
(100%)
Tem-gSUVR50-70
vs.
Tem-gSUVR40-60 		61/62
(98.4%)
κ=0.900		 62/62
(100%)
κ=1.0		 10/11
(90.9%)		 22/22
(100%) 		112/113
(99.1%)		 102/102
(100%)
62 Younger
vs.
152 Older 		62Younger-Tem-rSUVR50-70
vs.
152OLDER-Tem-rSUVR5070 		27/62
(43.5%)
κ=0		 53/62
(85.5%)
κ=0.712		 0/35
(0.0%)		 20/29
(69.0%)		 54/89
(60.7%)		 86/95
(90.5%)
62Younger-Tem-gSUVR50-70
vs.
152OLDER-Tem-gSUVR5070 		56/62
(90.3%)
κ=0		 57/62
(91.9%)
κ=0.664		 0/6
(0.0%)		 12/17
(70.6%)		 112/118
(94.9%)		 102/107
(95.3%)
*

Positive agreement is calculated as follows: if there are 16 positive cases by one method and 17 positive cases by the other and agreement across 15 cases, then 30 (15 + 15) out of a total of 33 positive ratings were in agreement, or 90.9%. The same applies to negative agreement. Conditions with perfect agreement are bolded.