Table 2.

Agreement comparisons among different segmentation methods for spontaneous ICH volume in two groups

Agreement Statistics	ICH without IVH group			ICH with IVH group
	Algorithm versus CTP	ABC/2 score versus CTP	Algorithm versus ABC/2 score	Algorithm versus CTP
Difference, mL
Range (min, max)	− 7.00,7.670	− 8.77,21.35	− 22.04, 7.59	− 14.02,10.80
Mean	− 0.10	1.53	− 1.63	− 0.11
Median	− 0.30	− 0.33	− 0.60	− 0.03
IQR	− 0.77,0.47	− 0.50,2.25	− 2.51,0.54	− 0.94,1.43
95% LOA (low, high)	− 4.38,4.18	− 7.90,10.96	− 11.22,7.96	− 7.05,6.82
CCC [95% CI]	0.993 [0.989 to 0.996]	0.968 [0.948 to 0.980]	0.967 [0.946 to 0.980]	0.996 [0.993 to 0.998]
P	0.218*	0.658*	0.007*	0.941†

ICH indicates intracerebral hemorrhage; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage; CTP, CT− based planimetry; LOA, limits of agreement; IQR, interquartile range; CCC, concordance correlation coefficient; and CI, confidence limit

*Friedman test, followed by pairwise comparisons

^†Wilcoxon signed−rank test