Table 4. Literature values of left ventricle contour errors.
| Method | Distance (mm)* |
Number of subjects | |
|---|---|---|---|
| endo | epi | ||
| Lorenzo-Valdes 2004 (3) | 2.21 | 2.99 | 12 |
| Kaus 2004 (6) | 2.28 (ES), 2.76 (ED) | 2.62 (ES), 2.92 (ED) | 169 |
| Lötjönen 2004 (29) | 2.01 | 2.77 | 25 |
| Van Assen 2005 (30) | 2.24 | 2.83 | 14 |
| Uzümcü 2006 (31) | 1.86 | 1.77 | 20 |
| Fradkin 2008 (32) | 1.27 | 1.56 | 35 |
| van Assen 2008 (33) | 1.34 | 1.27 | 15 |
| Jolly 2009 (34) | 2.48 | 2.91 | 19 |
| Peter 2009 (35) | 0.69 | 0.83 | 42† |
| Grosgeorge 2010 (36) | 3.24 (ES), 2.92 (ED) | N/A | 59 |
| Sun 2010 (37) | 0.87 | N/A | 40 |
*, Different distance measures were utilized, with similarity to APD; †, Image volumes. Subject number unknown. ED, end diastolic; ES, end systolic; endo, endocardial contour; epi, epicardial contour