Table 1. Evaluation of contours calculated with the proposed method.
| Scanner vendor | Patient group | LV located (%) | APD (mm) |
DM |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| endo | epi | endo | epi | ||||
| GE | HFI | 100 (34/34) | 1.86 | 1.90 | 0.92 | 0.94 | |
| HFNI | 96.7 (29/30) | 1.89 | 1.88 | 0.92 | 0.94 | ||
| HYP | 93.8 (30/32) | 2.67 | 2.08 | 0.85 | 0.93 | ||
| HEA | 100 (37/37) | 1.89 | 1.81 | 0.89 | 0.93 | ||
| Mean | 97.7 (130/133) | 2.08 | 1.92 | 0.90 | 0.94 | ||
| Philips | 100 (6/6) | 1.90 | 2.14 | 0.91 | 0.93 | ||
APD, Average perpendicular difference; DM, Dice metric; endo, endocardial contour; epi, epicardial contour; LV, left ventricle. Patients were grouped according to pathology: HEA, healthy; HFI, heart failure with ischemia; HFNI, heart failure with no ischemia; HYP, hypertrophy