Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 16;21(1):88–100. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0470

Table 3. Subgroup Analyses to Evaluate Factors Influencing Performance of FCN-Based Segmentation System on Validation Cohorts.

Influential Factors Subgroups DSC CSA Error (%)
MA SFA VFA MA SFA VFA
Contrast enhancement (n* = 597) Used (n = 277) 0.96 ± 0.02 (0.84–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.02 (0.84–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.92–0.99) 2.38 ± 1.96 (0.02–10.51) 3.35 ± 3.14 (0.05–23.30) 2.00 ± 1.92 (0.02–14.84)
Not used (n = 320) 0.96 ± 0.00 (0.75–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.05 (0.34–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.03 (0.90–0.99) 2.15 ± 2.73 (< 0.01–20.36) 4.60 ± 18.34 (0.03–326.36) 1.86 ± 1.69 (0.01–12.74)
p value 0.927 0.128 0.369 0.231 0.229 0.350
Segmented area size (n* = 597) Highest quartile (n = 149) 0.97 ± 0.02 (0.79–0.99) 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.87–0.99) 0.98 ± 0.00 (0.94–0.99) 1.80 ± 2.11 (0.03–20.36) 2.35 ± 1.67 (0.04–8.30) 1.61 ± 1.40 (0.01–8.01)
Lowest quartile (n = 149) 0.95 ± 0.03 (0.84–0.99) 0.95 ± 0.06 (0.34–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.92–0.99) 2.79 ± 3.07 (0.05–18.78) 7.43 ± 26.68 (0.08–326.36) 2.70 ± 2.35 (0.01–14.84)
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 0.022 < 0.001
Disease type (n* = 426) Gastric cancer (n = 95) 0.97 ± 0.02 (0.84–0.99) 0.98 ± 0.01 (0.94–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.92–0.99) 2.32 ± 1.93 (0.02–10.51) 3.18 ± 2.28 (0.05–10.54) 1.94 ± 1.75 (0.02–10.11)
Sepsis (n = 234) 0.95 ± 0.03 (0.75–0.99) 0.96 ± 0.05 (0.34–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.93–0.99) 2.74 ± 3.08 (0.05–20.36) 5.06 ± 21.48 (0.04–326.36) 2.01 ± 1.92 (0.01–14.84)
Healthy (n = 97) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.91–0.99) 0.98 ± 0.02 (0.89–0.99) 0.97 ± 0.01 (0.90–0.99) 1.52 ± 1.48 (< 0.01–10.41) 3.55 ± 2.83 (0.03–18.25) 1.80 ± 1.66 (0.01–12.75)
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 0.644 < 0.001 0.318 0.521
Contrasted pairings§ Cancer > sepsis (p < 0.001) Cancer > sepsis (p < 0.001) None Sepsis > healthy (p < 0.001) None None
Healthy > sepsis (p < 0.001) Healthy > sepsis (p < 0.001) Cancer > healthy (p = 0.003)

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, with range in parenthesis. *‘n’ indicates number of CT scans, p values of independent t test, p values of analysis of variance, §Pairings showing significant difference in Bonferroni corrected post-hoc t tests.