Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Transl Stroke Res. 2015 May 3;6(4):323–338. doi: 10.1007/s12975-015-0400-3

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Effect of our algorithm on infarct volume analysis for published data. Algorithm differences are examined using four published studies which utilized Lin et al.’s algorithm for estimating infarct volume in TTC-stained brain tissue of adult Sprague-Dawley rats subjected to 2 h MCAO and sacrificed 24 h after MCAO. a Study 1. Lin et al.’s algorithm’s infarct volumes display statistical significance between the MCAO+Treatment Dose 2 and the MCAO groups and the MCAO+ Treatment Dose 2 and the MCAO+Vehicle groups. The infarct volumes computed using our algorithm are increased more for the smaller infarct volumes (MCAO+Treatment Dose 1 and MCAO+Treatment Dose 2). Our algorithm’s infarct volumes are not statistically different from one another. n=6/group [22]. b Study 2. When Lin et al.’s algorithm is used, the MCAO+Treatment group is significantly lower than the MCAO group. When our algorithm is used, no significance is observed between the two groups. n=8/group [21]. c Study 3. The infarct volumes computed using Lin et al.’s algorithm displays statistical significance for all three treatment groups versus the Vehicle group. Our algorithm’s infarct volumes for the MCAO+Treatment 1 and the MCAO+Treatment 2 groups are not significantly different from the MCAO+Vehicle group. However, the combined treatment group (MCAO+Treatments 1+2) is statistically different from the MCAO+ Vehicle group. n=6/group [23]. d Study 4. All inter-group statistical significance for Lin et al.’s algorithm’s infarct volumes are identical to that of our algorithm’s. n=6/group [24]. All graphs: *p<0.05 vs. MCAO for Lin et al.’s algorithm, #p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Vehicle for Lin et al.’s algorithm, †p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Vehicle for our algorithm, p<0.05 vs. MCAO for our algorithm, &p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 1 for Lin et al.’s algorithm, @p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 1 for our algorithm, ¥<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 1+Inhibitor for Lin et al.’s algorithm, §p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 1+Inhibitor for our algorithm, €p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 1+Vehicle for Lin et al.’s algorithm, £p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 2 for Lin et al.’s algorithm, ¤p<0.05 vs. MCAO+ Treatment 1 +Vehicle for our algorithm, p<0.05 vs. MCAO+Treatment 2 for our algorithm. N.S. denotes lost statistical significance when our algorithm is used rather than Lin et al.’s algorithm