Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 1;82(5):1905–1919. doi: 10.1002/mrm.27852

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Self‐consistency evaluation given by projected NCC‐similarities for all slices of obtained abdominal SRRs for an increasing number of input stacks for different motion correction strategies summarized for all eight subjects. All self‐consistency outcomes between SRR approaches, except for RG‐HT2W vs Static SRR for “a+c+s,” are significantly different within each source data configuration based on Kruskal‐Wallis with post hoc Dunn tests (p < 0.05)