TABLE 1.

Survey Results

	All Readers
	4.0 (3.0-5.0)
	Reader 1	Reader 2	Reader 3	Reader 4	Reader 5
Score Summary (IQR)	4.0 (3.0-4.0)	5.0 (4.3-5.0)	3.0 (3.0-4.8)	4.0 (2.5-4.8)	3.0 (3.0-4.0)
	Reader 1	Reader 2	Reader 3	Reader 4	Reader 5
Number of cases scored ≥3/total	26/30 (87)	30/30 (100)	24/30 (80)	22/30 (73)	23/30 (77)
Image features improved
Delineation of borders and orifices/total	24/26 (92)	28/30 (93)	12/24 (50)	11/22 (50)	20/23 (87)
Delineation of cavities/total	15/26 (58)	27/30 (90)	12/24 (50)	12/22 (55)	7/23 (30)
Identification of structural abnormalities/total	19/26 (73)	23/30 (77)	15/24 (62)	9/22 (41)	15/23 (65)
Delineation of masses and their attachment/total	9/26 (35)	10/30 (33)	7/24 (29)	4/22 (18)	6/23 (26)

This table shows survey results of 30 cases scored by 5 readers who had never been exposed to TI rendering. Scores of the perceived use of TI compared to that of conventional rendering were derived using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (where 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree), with median and interquartile ranges (IQR) (top). The number of cases that scored ≥3 and corresponding image features improved with TI for each reader are presented as absolute numbers and % (bottom).