Ai Feedback
Exact(8)
For perfusion volumes, mean volume difference was also lowest using a 15%max threshold (3.3 ± 12.5%).
For ventilation volumes, mean volume difference was lowest (− 0.4%) using a 15%max threshold with Pearson's coefficient of 0.71.
In an initial approach, we looked at global parameters such as Pearson's coefficients, mean volume difference, and similarity indexes.
For perfusion volumes, mean volume difference was lowest and Pearson's coefficient was highest using a 15%max threshold (3.3% and 0.81, respectively).
The developed method was robust to inter-observer variability and produced very good accuracy — 3.2±1.1 mm absolute surface positioning error, <1 mm mean signed error and <5% mean volume difference.
For example, we found with the 15%max threshold for perfusion functional volumes a mean volume difference of − 3.3%, a Pearson's coefficient of 0.81, and a median Dice similarity coefficient of 0.93.
Similar(52)
Our pipeline achieves a Dice score of more than 82% for post-operative thrombus segmentation and provides a mean relative volume difference between ground truth and automatic segmentation that lays within the experienced human observer variance without the need of human intervention in most common cases.
For limbBF measurements, the mean absolute volume difference for each hour of difference between the exact measurement time points was 14.6 ml (95% CI: 7.4 - 21.8 ml), and in relative terms 0.26%95%5% CI: 0.14 - 0.38%).
An 8-week pilot study of the FAST programme in TD individuals revealed a mean gastrocnemius muscle volume difference of 11.5 mL post-training with an SD of the difference between means of 14 mL; an effect size of 0.82.
Mean presurgical limb volume difference was 45.1 % (arm 44.2 %; leg 47.3 %).
Finally, a previously reportedly statistically significant (p = 0.007) difference in mean volume between sub-populations of different ages, which may reflect formational processes, is demonstrated to be only 30 50% likely to exist in reality.
Related(14)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com