Sentence examples for quantification errors for from inspiring English sources

Figures 2b, 3b, and 4d show box plots summarizing quantification errors for different phantom scans.

Fig. 2 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in air (a), and error distribution for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b).

In the top part of the figures, the quantification errors for individual objects, sorted by increasing volumes from the left (S1) to the right (C4), are presented.

Table 4 summarizes the mean quantification errors for the ROI with a diameter of 60%to90%0% of the physical diameter size, the three test phantoms, and the three calibration phantoms.

The boxes in (b) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions Fig. 3 Quantification errors for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in cold water and error distribution (b) for both scatter correction methods, TEW and APDI (b).

Quantification error for scans in air was better for TEW scatter correction (<6%) than for APDI (<11%).

Comparing sets 1 5 and sets A E, it is determined that the assumption of equal optical properties at excitation and emission wavelengths results in less than 5% quantification error for all three criteria.

Following the MIRD recommendations for data acquisition and reconstruction resulted in accurate activity quantification (errors <5% for large objects).

The boxes in (b) represent the range of variation (interquartile range-IQR) of the distributions Fig. 4 Quantification errors (with uncertainties) for phantom inserts with different shapes and volumes scanned in warm water and segmented with three different methods: 40% fixed threshold (a), CT based (b), and IADT (c).

The resulting quantification errors were about 20% for the largest sphere.

Figure 3 Quantification error obtained for the three calibration phantoms and the three test phantoms.