. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Feb 1;48(9):2771–2781. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05197-3

TABLE 2. Agreement between expert reviewer tumor diagnoses on 100% standard-dose¹⁸F-FDG PET and simulated 6.25% ultra-low-dose¹⁸F-FDG PET and AI-reconstructed¹⁸F-FDG PET scan.

Three expert reviewers determined the presence of absence of tumor lesions in 20 anatomical regions per patient according to a Likert scale (1 - tumor definitely not present, 2 - tumor probably not present, 3 - undecided, 4 - tumor probably present, 5 - tumor definitely present). The agreement between 100% standard-dose PET images and 6.25% ultra-low-dose ¹⁸F-FDG PET and AI-reconstructed ¹⁸F-FDG PET scans was calculated with weighted Kappa estimates.

Procedure	Weighted Kappa (Linear)	Whighted Kappa (Quadratic)
Lymp Nodes
625% ultra-low-dose	0.702	0.859
Al-reconstructed PET	0.955	0.984
Extralymphatic
6.25% ultra-low-dose	0.573	0.765
AI-reconstructed PET	0.910	0.965
Bone Marrow
6.25% ultra-low-dose	0278	0.444
AI-reconstructed PET	0.828	0.916
Whole Body
6.25% ultra-low-dose	0.650	0.820
AI-reconstructed PET	0942	0.977

TABLE 2. Agreement between expert reviewer tumor diagnoses on 100% standard-dose18F-FDG PET and simulated 6.25% ultra-low-dose18F-FDG PET and AI-reconstructed18F-FDG PET scan.

TABLE 2. Agreement between expert reviewer tumor diagnoses on 100% standard-dose¹⁸F-FDG PET and simulated 6.25% ultra-low-dose¹⁸F-FDG PET and AI-reconstructed¹⁸F-FDG PET scan.