TABLE 3.
Left | Right | |
All | ||
ICC volume | 0.76 [0.48, 0.94] | 0.89 [0.57, 0.98] |
ICC AFD | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
ICC FA | 0.99 [0.97, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] |
ICC MD | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
DSC | 0.88 | 0.86 |
ICC LGB | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
ICC TP-ML | 0.72 [0.41, 0.92] | 0.81 [0.53, 0.97] |
ICC TH-ML | 0.74 [0.45, 0.93] | 0.80 [0.51, 0.97] |
Lesion hemisphere | ||
ICC volume | 0.76 [0.28, 0.99] | 0.89 [0.51, 0.98] |
ICC AFD | 0.99 [0.95, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
ICC FA | 0.90 [0.52, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] |
ICC MD | 0.94 [0.71, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
DSC | 0.84 | 0.87 |
ICC LGB | 0.95 [0.75, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
ICC TP-ML | 0.41 [0.21, 0.97] | 0.70 [0.25, 0.97] |
ICC TH-ML | 0.74 [0.13, 0.99] | 0.85 [0.53, 0.99] |
Non-lesion hemisphere | ||
ICC volume | 0.92 [0.71, 0.99] | 0.97 [0.75, 0.99] |
ICC AFD | 0.99 [0.98, 0.99] | 0.98 [0.83, 0.99] |
ICC FA | 0.99 [0.96, 0.99] | 0.94[0.59, 0.99] |
ICC MD | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] | 0.98 [0.87, 0.99] |
DSC | 0.87 | 0.88 |
ICC LGB | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
ICC TP-ML | 0.89 [0.64, 0.99] | 0.98 [0.90, 0.99] |
ICC TH-ML | 0.82 [0.50, 0.98] | 0.99 [0.99, 0.99] |
DSC is median DSC across all pairwise comparisons between raters. ICC coefficients were computed using a one-way consistency model for intra-rater comparisons, and two-way agreement for inter-rater comparisons. 95% confidence intervals are given in square brackets. AFD, apparent fiber density; DSC, dice similarity coefficient; MD, mean diffusivity; FA, fractional anisotropy; ICC, intraclass coefficient; LGB, lateral geniculate body; TH-ML, distance between the tip of temporal ventricular horn and the anterior edge of Meyer’s loop; TP-ML, distance between the temporal pole and the anterior edge of Meyer’s loop.