Skip to main content
. 2023 Feb 27;25:15. doi: 10.1186/s12968-023-00924-1

Table 10.

Average global ventricular measurements for manually and automatically generated shape models in the test set as well as differences and correlations

Measure Manual Cases Automated Cases Difference (%) R2 p-value
LV EDV (mL) 119 ± 36 114 ± 37 − 5 ± 10 (− 4) 0.93  < 0.05
LV ESV (mL) 62 ± 24 64 ± 23 2 ± 9 (3) 0.85 0.26
LV SV (mL) 57 ± 16 50 ± 18 − 7 ± 8 (− 12) 0.82  < 0.01
LV EF (%) 48 ± 7 44 ± 7 − 5 ± 6 (− 9) 0.45  < 0.01
LV Mass (g) 111 ± 33 118 ± 37 8 ± 12 (7) 0.89  < 0.01
RV EDV (mL) 197 ± 51 191 ± 54 − 6 ± 17 (− 3) 0.90 0.07
RV ESV (mL) 121 ± 37 114 ± 36 − 7 ± 13 (− 6) 0.88  < 0.01
RV SV (mL) 76 ± 23 77 ± 29 1 ± 15 (1) 0.76 0.67
RV EF (%) 39 ± 7 40 ± 10 1 ± 7 (3) 0.55 0.39
RV Mass (g) 53 ± 24 54 ± 25 0 ± 7 (0.4) 0.93 0.83

Numerical data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Differences between the manual and automated cases were assessed using paired-sample t-tests. LV left ventricular, RV right ventricular, EDV end-diastolic volume, ESV end-systolic volume; SV stroke volume, EF ejection fraction