. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016 Dec 3;12(10):1829–1837. doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1504-2

Table 2.

Sorting results for twelve subjects with subdural grids

Subject	Grid 1 accuracy	Grid 2 accuracy	Grid 3 accuracy	Grid 4 accuracy	Total accuracy
Subject 1	8 × 6	8 × 2	8 × 2		79/80 (99%)
	48/48	16/16	15/16
Subject 2	8 × 8				61/64 (95%)
	61/64
Subject 3	8 × 8	8 × 4			94/96 (98%)
	62/64	32/32
Subject 4	8 × 8	8 × 4			92/96 (96%)
	63/64	29/32
Subject 5	8 × 8				60/64 (94%)
	60/64
Subject 6	8 × 8	4 × 4			78/80 (98%)
	62/64	16/16
Subject 7	12 × 8	8 × 2	8 × 2		128/128 (100%)
	96/96	16/16	16/16
Subject 8	8 × 4	8 × 2	8 × 2		64/64 (100%)
	32/32	16/16	16/16
Subject 9	8 × 8	8 × 2	8 × 2		95/96 (99%)
	64/64	16/16	15/16
Subject 10	8 × 4	8 × 2	8 × 2		64/64 (100%)
	32/32	16/16	16/16
Subject 11	8 × 6	8 × 2	8 × 2		79/80 (99%)
	47/48	16/16	16/16
Subject 12	8 × 2	8 × 2	8 × 2	8 × 2	31/64 (48%)
	16/16	15/16	0/16	0/16
					925/976 (95%)

Results compare overlap between automatically sorted grids using novel sorting and labeling algorithm and true grids determined by manual inspection