Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Oct 15, 2017; 9(10): 423-430
Published online Oct 15, 2017. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i10.423
Published online Oct 15, 2017. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i10.423
Table 3 Qualitative scoring of image noise, image sharpness and diagnostic quality of computed tomography images from Reader 1 and Reader 2
| Image noise | Image sharpness | Diagnostic quality | ||||
| Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | |
| Low-dosea | 3.4 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.8 ± 0.4 |
| Group A (n = 8) | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 3.8 ± 0.5 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.8 ± 0.5 |
| Group B (n = 25) | 3.4 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 3.8 ± 0.5 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 3.7 ± 0.6 | 3.8 ± 0.4 |
| Group C (n = 13) | 3.1 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 4.0 ± 0.0 |
| Group D (n = 5) | 3.3 ± 0.6 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 3.3 ± 0.6 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 3.7 ± 0.6 |
| Standard-doseb | 3.6 ± 0.7 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.3 ± 0.7 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.8 ± 0.4 |
| Group A (n = 8) | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.5 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.6 | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.8 ± 0.5 |
| Group B (n = 25) | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 3.8 ± 0.4 |
| Group C (n = 13) | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 3.6 ± 0.5 | 4.0 ± 0.0 |
| Group D (n = 5) | 2.3 ± 1.5 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 3.3 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 1.2 | 3.7 ± 0.6 |
| P-valuea-b | 0.292 | 0.655 | 0.012 | 0.088 | 0.437 | 0.206 |
| k Cohen Reader 1-Reader 2 | 0.694a-0.756b | 0.783a-0.672b | 0.704a-0.786b | |||
- Citation: Ippolito D, Casiraghi AS, Franzesi CT, Fior D, Meloni F, Sironi S. Low-dose computed tomography with 4th-generation iterative reconstruction algorithm in assessment of oncologic patients. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2017; 9(10): 423-430
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v9/i10/423.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v9.i10.423