Table 2.
Infarct volume comparison of ADC and LGE
| Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 1 Repeat | Reviewer 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FWHM | Thresh | FWHM | Thresh | FWHM | Thresh | ||
| LGE Infarct Volume (%) | 11 ± 4 | 13 ± 4 | 11 ± 4 | 12 ± 5 | 10 ± 5 | 14 ± 4 | |
| ADC Infarct Volume (%) | 11++ ± 4 | 12++ ± 4 | 11++ ± 3 | 13++ ± 4 | 9++ ± 4 | 13++ ± 4 | |
| ADC vs LGE | ICC | 0.99** | 0.98** | 0.97** | 0.95** | 0.96** | 0.93** |
| R2 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.87 | |
| bias (%) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | −0.2 | 1.3 | 0.2 | |
| ADC R1 vs R2 | ICC | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.91** | 0.94** |
| R2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.85 | 0.90 | |
| bias (%) | -- | -- | -- | -- | −1.9 | 0.8 | |
| LGE R1 vs R2 | ICC | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.94** | 0.97** |
| R2 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.92 | 0.94 | |
| bias (%) | -- | -- | -- | -- | −1.1 | 0.3 | |
| ADC R1 vs R1-re | ICC | -- | -- | 0.96** | 0.92** | -- | -- |
| R2 | -- | -- | 0.92 | 0.86 | -- | -- | |
| bias (%) | -- | -- | −0.6 | 1.2 | -- | -- | |
| LGE R1 vs R1-re | ICC | -- | -- | 0.96** | 0.94** | -- | -- |
| R2 | -- | -- | 0.91 | 0.88 | -- | -- | |
| bias (%) | -- | -- | 0.3 | −0.2 | -- | -- | |
++not significant ADC vs LGE, **p < 0.01, thresh: threshold, R1: reviewer 1, R2: reviewer 2, R1-re: reviewer 1 repeat.