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 ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [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 3:Readers' performance in evaluating PCT and C-arm CT imagesa
Reader 1 Reader 2 Reader 3 Mean TP readings of PCT 75.0% 70% 75% 73.3% TP readings of C-arm CT 83.3% 83.3% 86.7% 84.4% FP readings of PCT 0% 5% 0% 1.7% FP readings of C-arm CT 0% 3.3% 6.7% 3.3% FN readings of PCT 25% 25% 25% 25% FN readings of C-arm CT 16.7% 13.3% 6.7% 12.2%
a Percentage of TP (infarct was correctly identified), FP (CBV abnormality identified in a location where there was no DWI abnormality), and FN (no abnormality identified in location where there was a DWI abnormality) readings are given for each reader individually and the mean of all 3 readers. C-arm CT readings demonstrate a better correlation with the criterion standard DWI. Most interesting, the rate of FP readings is very low. Please note the discrepancy of FN PCT and FN C-arm CT readings.