Table 5. Comparison of the 2 algorithms according to the type of analysis and the counting method.
| Algorithm 1 | Algorithm 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | R | C+R | C | R | C+R | |
| Man./Aut. | 0,24 | N/A | 0,17 | 0,92 | 0,15 | 0,93 |
| C / R | C / C+R | R / C+R | C / R | C / C+R | R / C+R | |
| Man./Man. | 0,05* | 0,99 | 0,14 | 0,4 | 0,99 | 0,45 |
| C / R | C / C+R | R / C+R | C / R | C / C+R | R / C+R | |
| Aut./Aut. | 0,0004* | 0,84 | 0,0002* | 0,04* | 0,99 | 0,05* |
C: combination, R: ratio, N/A: non applicable.
*: statistically significant difference (chi-squared test). Algorithm 1 was studied on the retrospective series, Algorithm 2 was studied on the prospective series.