Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2012 Dec 4;70(5):1360–1368. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24564

Table 2.

Comparison of Image Inhomogeneity in Volunteers

LV Cavity LV Myocardium Overall

T2 Prep module Mean CV* (n = 21) P-value (vs proposed module) Mean CV* (n = 21) P-value (vs proposed module) Mean CV* (n = 42) P-value (vs proposed module)
Proposed Module 0.07 (0.06 – 0.08) -- 0.14 (0.13 – 0.16) -- 0.10 (0.09 – 0.11) --
Silver-Hoult–pair 0.11 (0.09 – 0.13) 0.0005 0.19 (0.17 – 0.22) 0.003 0.14 (0.13 – 0.17) 0.001
MLEV-4 0.11 (0.09 – 0.13) <0.0001 0.22 (0.19-0.25) 0.006 0.15 (0.13 – 0.18) <0.0001
mBIR-4 0.23 (0.18 – 0.30) <0.0001 0.32 (0.27 – 0.38) <0.0001 0.27 (0.23 – 0.32) <0.0001
*

Indices reported as the antilog of the mean CV (95% confidence interval of the SEM) of log transformed data.