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

Published in final edited form as: Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021 Apr 2;46(8):3927–3934. doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03073-0

Table 2.

Comparison of regions of interest by analysis methods

Region of interest analysis	Absolute difference (mm²)	Percent difference	Fixed bias p value	Proportional bias, p value	ICC
R1,1-R1,2	− 602 ± 718	− 33.1 ± 31.1	< 0.001	0.19, 0.002	0.860
R1-R2	20 ± 1054	− 4.38 ± 43.8	0.766	− 0.18, 0.003	0.615
A95-A90	− 795 ± 1064	− 54.1 ± 113	< 0.001	− 0.44, < 0.001	0.608
R1-A95	320 ± 1043	5.4 ± 41.2	< 0.001	0.18, 0.014	0.497
R1-A90	− 475 ± 1298	− 29.3 ± 66	< 0.001	− 0.31, < 0.001	0.471
R2-A95	301 ± 1334	− 4.1 ± 59	< 0.001	0.42, < 0.001	0.314
R2-A90	− 495 ± 1577	− 42.5 ± 93	< 0.001	− 0.127, 0.169	0.312

Unless otherwise indicated, data are reported as the mean ± standard deviation. Manual analysis informed by a 95% confidence mask by Reader 1 (R1), and Reader 2 (R2). Automated analysis using a 95% confidence mask (A95) and a 90% confidence mask (A90). Intra-reader comparison for a 95% confidence mask in 20 subjects using Reader 1’s initial set of contours (R1,1) and his repeat contours (R1,2)