Table 2.
Dice similarity coefficients between lesion segmentation methods by field strength. SD, standard deviation.
| Lesion segmentation method comparison | Field strength | Dice similarity coefficient Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Manual 1 vs Manual 2 | 1.5T | 0.21 (0.20) |
| 3T | 0.28 (0.21) | |
| Manual 1 vs BaMoS | 1.5T | 0.25 (0.23) |
| 3T | 0.32 (0.22) | |
| Manual 2 vs BaMoS | 1.5T | 0.52 (0.25) |
| 3T | 0.53 (0.24) | |
| Manual 1 vs T2-FLAIR-only BaMoS | 1.5T | 0.21 (0.21) |
| 3T | 0.29 (0.20) | |
| Manual 2 vs T2-FLAIR-only BaMoS | 1.5T | 0.37 (0.23) |
| 3T | 0.43 (0.19) | |
| BaMoS vs T2-FLAIR-only BaMoS | 1.5T | 0.46 (0.24) |
| 3T | 0.57 (0.19) |
Proportion of lesion volume difference between conventional and T2-FLAIR-only BaMoS methods was median (IQR) 0.33 (−1.75 – 1.45) for 1.5T, and −0.13 (−1.87 – 0.18) for 3T (Fig. 4). Median percentage volume difference was −28.7% for 1.5T and 13.6% for 3T.