. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jul 14;43(2):391–397. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25000

Table 1.

Comparison of different registration strategies in estimating GFR, RPF, and MTT.

Registration	GFR (ml/min)		RPF (ml/min)		MTT (s)
Registration	WK	CM	WK	CM	WK	CM
No-registration	30 ± 10*	32 ± 12*	154 ± 48*	158 ± 50*	211 ± 49	219 ± 69
Composite sampling	32 ± 10	33 ± 12	191 ± 68*	195 ± 72*	220 ± 61	203 ± 54
Edge-based method	32 ± 11	33 ± 12	161 ± 51	165 ± 52	225 ± 61	215 ± 55

The values are mean ± standard deviation across all 72 kidneys. Asterisks indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05) as evaluated by a paired t-test between the value and the estimate from the edge-based method (bottom row). WK refers to the whole-kidney model, CM to the corticomedullary model.