Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 14;23(12):1251–1259. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0496

Table 3. Interobserver Agreement and Agreement between the Automated and Manually Measured Native T1 and ECV Fraction.

Comparison ICC (95% Confidence Interval)*
Native T1 ECV
Reader 1–reader 2 0.98 (0.78–1.00) 0.99 (0.86–1.00)
Reader 1–reader 3 0.97 (0.59–0.99) 0.99 (0.88–1.00)
Reader 1–reader 4 1.00 (0.97–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)
Reader 2–reader 3 1.00 (0.97–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)
Reader 2–reader 4 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.00)
Reader 3–reader 4 0.99 (0.97–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.00)
Among four readers 0.99 (0.96–0.99) 0.99 (0.99–1.00)
Automatic–reader 1 0.98 (0.95–0.99) 0.99 (0.98–0.99)
Automatic–reader 2 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 0.98 (0.97–0.99)
Automatic–reader 3 0.98 (0.95–0.99) 0.99 (0.97–0.99)
Automatic–reader 4 0.99 (0.98–0.99) 0.99 (0.98–0.99)
Automatic–average of four readers 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.99 (0.98–0.99)

*Based on per-subject basis. ECV = extracellular volume, ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient