. 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 3.

Comparison Between LIC Estimation Methods

	FS vs. SA	FS vs. LS	FS vs. DS	SA vs. LS	SA vs. DS	LS vs.DS
R²	0.968	0.960	0.954	0.989	0.978	0.982
Intercept	0.094 [−0.050, 0.237]	0.138 [−0.021, 0.297]	0.103 [−0.070, 0.276]	0.049 [−0.037, 0.135]	0.0149 [−0.108. 0.137]	−0.029 [−0.137, 0.080]
Slope	0.949 [0.893, 1.005]	0.966 [0.902, 1.029]	0.981 [0.911, 1.051]	1.016 [0.982, 1.051]	1.0297 [0.980, 1.0792]	1.010 [0.966, 1.054]
ICC	0. 984 [0. 970, 0.991]	0.979 [0.962, 0.989]	0.977 [0.957, 0.987]	0.993 [0.988, 0.997]	0.988 [0.978, 0.994]	0.991 [0.983, 0.995]
ΔLIC% 95% LOA	0.304 [−12.47, 13.08]	1.490 [−12.21, 15.19]	1.254 [−13.51, 16.01]	1.223 [−6.363, 8.810]	0.948 [−9.792, 1.688]	−0.267 [−9.737, 9.203]

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; ΔLIC = mean %-difference of Liver Iron Concentration (LIC) by Bland-Altman Analysis; [ ] indicates 95% confidence intervals for point estimates. LOA = limits of agreement.