Table 2:
Estimated FOM |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAD− | CAD+ | Difference | 95% CI | P Value | |
Reader 1 | 0.667 | 0.726 | 0.060 | (−0.184–0.304) | .62 |
Reader 2 | 0.660 | 0.842 | 0.182 | (0.021–0.344) | .028 |
Reader 3 | 0.789 | 0.892 | 0.103 | (−0.071–0.276) | .24 |
Reader 4b | 0.594 | 0.746 | 0.152 | (−0.042–0.347) | .12 |
Reader 5 | 0.514 | 0.717 | 0.203 | (−0.158–0.564) | .26 |
Reader 6 | 0.707 | 0.630 | -0.077 | (−0.371–0.217) | .60 |
Overall | 0.655 | 0.759 | 0.104 | (0.025–0.183) | .011 |
For all except reader 6, there was a definite increase in the FOM when CAD results were available, though the difference was statistically significant for only 1 reader (reader 2).
General radiologist; all other readers are neuroradiologists.