. 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

Table 2.

Bland-Altman comparison of the differences between our algorithm and Lin et al.’s algorithm for infarct volume difference (Eq. 17) and infarct volume ratio (Eq. 19)

Infarct volume range (%)^a	Differences in infarct volume (%)		Infarct volume ratio
Infarct volume range (%)^a	Mean±SD	95 % Agreement (lower, upper)	Mean±STD	95 % Agreement (lower, upper)
0–10	3.0±2.12	−1.16, 7.16	1.39±0.293	0.816, 1.964
10–15	3.6±1.95	−0.22, 7.42	1.30±0.170	0.967, 1.633
15–20	2.6±1.33	−0.01, 5.15	1.15±0.079^# ^†	0.995, 1.305
20–25	2.1±1.45^†	−0.74, 4.84	1.09±0.063^# ^†	0.967, 1.213
25–30	1.9±1.16^†	−0.37, 4.10	1.07±0.044^# ^†	0.984, 1.156
30–40	1.2±0.63^†	−0.03, 2.36	1.04±0.018^# ^†	1.005, 1.075

The means and standard deviations are computed using the individual data points within each infarct volume range. The 95 % agreements are computed based on the method of Bland and Altman [49]. n=7–25/group.

p<0.05 vs. 0–10 % infarct volume range,

^†

p<0.05 vs. 10–15 % infarct volume range

The infarct volume range is based on infarct volumes computed using Lin et al. ‘s algorithm