Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun;107:215–228. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2020.02.005

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Bland–Altman plots for the calculated LA scars percentage of our MVTT method and the LA scars percentage of the manual delineation. (a) and (b) were calculated on the 170 LGE CMR images using training/cross-validation results. (c) and (d) were calculated on the 20 LGE CMR images using independent testing results. Horizontal lines show the mean difference and the 95% CI of limits of agreement (confidence limits of the bias), which are defined as the mean difference plus/minus 1.96 times the standard deviation of the differences. The mean differences are near the 0-line (bias =−1% [95% CI −6% to 4%] and bias =−1% [95% CI −8% to 5%] for the pre-ablation and post-ablation cases respectively via training/cross-validation and bias =−0.2% [95% CI −2% to 1.7%] and bias =−0.1% [95% CI −2.3% to 2.6%] for the pre-ablation and post-ablation cases respectively via independent testing. In summary, no significant systematic differences between the two methods can be discerned. MSP: Manual Segmented Atrial Scar Percentage; ESP: Estimated Atrial Scar Percentage.