. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Dec 1.

Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2018 May 16;80(6):2691–2701. doi: 10.1002/mrm.27348

Table 2.

Comparison Between R2 Estimation Methods

	FS vs. SA	FS vs. LS	FS vs. DS	SA vs. LS	SA vs. DS	LS vs.DS
R²	0.971	0.963	0.957	0.990	0.978	0.983
Intercept	−0.155 [−0.502, 0.192]	−0.060 [−0.437, 0.317]	0.075 [−0.330, 0.481]	0.099 [−0.087, 0.284]	0.246 [−0.033, 0.524]	0.162 [−0.087, 0.411]
Slope	1.025 [0.967, 1.082]	1.002 [0.939, 1.065]	0.979 [0.912, 1.047]	0.977 [0.946, 1.007]	0.952 [0.906, 0.999]	0.973 [0.931, 1.015]
ICC	0. 985 [0.972, 0.992]	0. 981 [0.965, 0.990]	0.978 [0.959, 0.988]	0.995 [0.990, 0.997]	0.988 [0.978, 0.994]	0.991 [0.984, 0.995]
ΔR2% 95% LOA	0.180 [−7.022, 7.383]	0.855 [−6.875, 8.585]	0.794 [−7.585, 9.173]	0.681 [−3.427, 4.789]	0.611 [−5.682, 6.905]	−0.068 [−5.465, 5.330]

The proprietary FerriScan^® method (FS) and the non-propriety methods (SA = simulated annealing, LS = least squares, DS = dictionary search) are compared using linear regression analysis. R² = coefficient of determination of a linear fit; Intercept/Slope are coefficients of fitted linear model; ICC = intraclass coefficient; ΔR2% = mean %-difference of summary R2 by Bland-Altman Analysis; [ ] indicates 95% confidence intervals for point estimates. LOA = limits of agreement.