Table 3.

Segmentation absolute errors (mean ± SD) in $\mathrm{\mu }\text{m}$, for the proposed method and the manual tracings performed by the analysts ${\mathcal{A}}_{1,2,3}$

	Training set			Testing set
	All	SJM-OCT	Terumo-OCT	All	SJM-OCT	Terumo-OCT
Intima–Media
Method vs ${\mathcal{A}}_1$	25 ± 37	28 ± 44	23 ± 32	$\mathbf{29}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{46}$	33 ± 48	27 ± 44
Inter-analysts	21 ± 25	21 ± 28	21 ± 22	20 ± 34	24 ± 45	18 ± 24
Intra-analyst	23 ± 40	31 ± 54	16 ± 20	15 ± 21	15 ± 18	15 ± 23
Media–adventitia
Method vs ${\mathcal{A}}_1$	27 ± 42	29 ± 45	25 ± 39	$\mathbf{30}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{50}$	31 ± 49	29 ± 50
Inter-analysts	20 ± 23	22 ± 28	19 ± 18	23 ± 48	27 ± 69	20 ± 25
Intra-analyst	20 ± 37	28 ± 52	14 ± 13	17 ± 28	20 ± 38	15 ± 20
Adventitia–tissues
Method vs ${\mathcal{A}}_1$	37 ± 48	38 ± 49	37 ± 47	$\mathbf{50}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{64}$	50 ± 66	49 ± 62
Inter-analysts	25 ± 28	27 ± 32	24 ± 25	32 ± 53	37 ± 72	29 ± 34
Intra-analyst	24 ± 40	34 ± 55	16 ± 20	24 ± 37	27 ± 47	22 ± 28

The metric is defined as the point-to-point distance along a line crossing the lumen center between a given contour and the corresponding reference contour. The number of included images per pullback for the method evaluation (Method vs ${\mathcal{A}}_1$) and for inter- and intra-analysts variability was 10 and 2, respectively

Bold values indicate the overall evaluation results of the method against the reference