Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Jun 13;47(13):2998–3007. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-04897-6

Table 4.

Mean and standard deviation (SD) image quality scores (1=uninterpretable; 2=poor; 3=adequate; 4=good; 5=excellent) and the proportion of high-quality images (scores 4–5) from the four readers.

Reader Ground-truth Method A Method B Method C Method D Low-count
1 Mean±SD 4.78±0.58 3.35±0.98 4.28±0.75 4.48±0.51 4.45±0.64 3.65±1.03
High-quality images (%) 92.5 45 82.5 100 92.5 60
2 Mean±SD 3.40±0.55 2.70±0.72 3.65±0.89 3.73±0.72 3.60±0.67 2.65±0.66
High-quality images (%) 42.5 15 52.5 57.5 60 10
3 Mean±SD 2.93±0.69 2.90±0.38 4.05±0.39 3.58±0.68 3.35±0.77 1.15±0.36
High-quality images (%) 20 2.5 95 62.5 42.5 0
4 Mean±SD 2.38±0.49 2.65±0.77 3.83±0.78 4.08±0.76 3.90±0.74 1.08±0.26
High-quality images (%) 0 17.5 65 80 72.5 0

Network training methods: A-direct application of pre-trained network; B-transfer learning starting with pre-trained network; C-training new network from scratch; D-training new network with combined datasets