Table 3.
Clinical evaluation by two radiologists for abdomen averaged over all eight subjects for two separate experiments: A first experiment based on six input stacks (a+c+s+3obl), and a second experiment involving three source data combinations (a+c, a+c+s, and a+c+s+3obl) for the best performing method in the first experiment (NiftyMIC)
| Clarity of anatomical structures | Total Score Anatomical Clarity | Visible Motion | Radiologists’ Preference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBD | LHD | RHD | |||||
| Exp. 1: a+c+s+3obl | Static SRR | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 3.75 ± 1.16 | 1.25 ± 0.46 | 1.62 ± 0.52 |
| RG‐HT2W | 1.50 ± 0.76 | 1.62 ± 0.52 | 1.62 ± 0.52 | 4.75 ± 1.58 | 1.25 ± 0.71 | 1.38 ± 0.52 | |
| NiftyMIC | 2.88 ± 0.35 | 2.62 ± 0.52 | 2.62 ± 0.52 | 8.12 ± 1.25 | 2.25 ± 0.71 | 3.00 ± 0.00 | |
| Exp. 2: NiftyMIC | a+c | 1.38 ± 0.52 | 1.12 ± 0.35 | 1.12 ± 0.35 | 3.62 ± 0.74 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.12 ± 0.35 |
| a+c+s | 1.75 ± 0.46 | 1.50 ± 0.53 | 1.50 ± 0.53 | 4.75 ± 0.89 | 1.38 ± 0.52 | 1.88 ± 0.35 | |
| a+c+s+3obl | 2.62 ± 0.52 | 2.50 ± 0.76 | 2.25 ± 0.71 | 7.38 ± 1.41 | 2.12 ± 0.35 | 3.00 ± 0.00 | |
Notes: Clarity of anatomical structures score indicates how well common bile duct (CBD), and left and right hepatic ducts (LHD and RHD) are visualized in each image with ratings 0 (structure not seen), 1 (poor depiction), 2 (suboptimal visualization; image not adequate for diagnostic purposes), 3 (clear visualization of structure but reduced tissue contrast; image‐based diagnosis feasible) and 4 (excellent depiction; optimal for diagnostic purposes). Visible motion score rates the amount of visible non‐corrected motion from score 0 (complete motion) to 3 (no motion). Radiologists’ preference ranks the subjectively preferred reconstructions from 1 to 3 (least to most preferred). Stars in the last three columns indicate that the respective score is statistically significantly different from the respective other two groups based on Kruskal‐Wallis and post hoc Dunn tests (p < 0.05).