1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh
Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)


TABLE 4: 
Diagnostic performance of various CT angiographic MPR analysis methods for assessment of degree of stenosis in carotid arteries compared with rotational angiography
MPR Analysis MethodObserverSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)Overall Accuracy (%)
Cross-sectional165 (11/17)94 (15/16)79 (26/33)
259 (10/17)94 (15/16)76 (25/33)
Sagittal182 (14/17)88 (14/16)85 (28/33)
265 (11/17)94 (15/16)79 (26/33)
Combined*182 (14/17)88 (14/16)85 (28/33)
271 (12/17)88 (14/16)79 (26/33)
  • Note.—Numbers in parentheses are number of arteries. A 50% stenosis was the cutoff point for a hemodynamically significant finding.
  • * Combined MPR was considered to be positive when either of the MPR (cross-sectional or oblique sagittal) measurements yielded a positive result.