Table 4.
Slice-based composition analyses: MATCH vs. Conventional protocol
| |
Conventional Protocol (T1-w TSE, T2-w TSE, TOF) |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRNC | IPH | CA | LM | ||||||
| |
|
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
| MATCH Protocol |
+ |
46 |
3 |
22 |
7 |
31 |
16 |
23 |
2 |
| - |
4 |
83 |
0 |
107 |
1 |
88 |
8 |
103 |
|
| # of slice in agreement (%) |
129 (94.9%) |
129 (94.9%) |
119 (87.5%) |
126 (92.6%) |
|||||
| Kappa (p-value) | 0.89 (<0.001) | 0.83 (<0.001) | 0.70 (<0.001) | 0.78 (<0.001) | |||||
LRNC: lipid-rich necrotic core; IPH: intra-plaque hemorrhage; CA: calcification; LM: loose matrix. +: detected; -: undetected.
Note: the plaque with IPH detected was also counted as a plaque with LRNC.