Table 3.

Results of FBPA improvement, visual ranking score, and expected value

MAR	SEMAR		Smart-MAR		p value	IMAR		p value	OMAR		p value
FBPA improvement (%)
Hip implant (Head)	33.7	$\pm$ 6.6	32.3	$\pm$ 9.0	0.320	20.0	$\pm$ 6.2	$<$ 0.001	18.2	$\pm$ 8.3	$<$ 0.001
Hip implant (Body)	7.0	$\pm$ 6.6	0.8	$\pm$ 1.1	$<$ 0.001	2.4	$\pm$ 6.2	$<$ 0.001	5.4	$\pm$ 3.6	$<$ 0.001
Spinal implant	14.0	$\pm$ 1.0	8.9	$\pm$ 1.1	$<$ 0.001	3.8	$\pm$ 0.8	$<$ 0.001	12.6	$\pm$ 1.0	$<$ 0.001
Dental filling	10.6	$\pm$ 5.5	9.1	$\pm$ 5.3	0.182	6.1	$\pm$ 5.0	$<$ 0.001	5.7	$\pm$ 3.7	$<$ 0.001
Visual ranking score
Hip implant	3.6	$\pm$ 0.7	3.3	$\pm$ 0.5	–	2.1	$\pm$ 0.3	–	0.9	$\pm$ 0.3	$<$ 0.001
Spinal implant	3.9	$\pm$ 0.3	3.1	$\pm$ 0.3	–	1.4	$\pm$ 0.5	–	0.9	$\pm$ 0.9	0.001
Dental filling	3.1	$\pm$ 0.6	3.8	$\pm$ 0.4	–	1.3	$\pm$ 0.5	–	0.3	$\pm$ 0.5	0.002
Expected value	36.6		37.8			5.0			2.3

For FBPA improvement, all $p$ value are compared to SEMAR. For Visual ranking score, only one $p$ value from Kendall’s coefficient of concordance. FBPA, fraction of bad pixel area.