Skip to main content

Table 4 Results from t-test and ROC analysis in per vessel and per patient based analysis

From: Quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow in coronary artery disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: comparison of Fermi and distributed parameter modeling against invasive methods

Statistical analysis/ Model Per vessel Per patient
Fermi DP Fermi DP
P values from t-test comparisons
 MBF (G1 vs G2) 0.02* <0.0001 † <0.00001* <0.00001 †
 MPR (G1 vs G2) <0.01* <0.0001 † <0.00001* <0.00001 †
 MPR2 (G1 vs G2) <0.00001* <0.00001 † <0.00001* <0.00001 †
AUCs from ROC analysis
 MBF 0.68 (0.55, 0.80) 0.76 (0.65, 0.87) 0.86 (0.77, 0.94) 0.97 (0.92, 1.00)
 MPR 0.69 (0.56, 0.81) 0.79 (0.68, 0.89) 0.85 (0.75, 0.94) 0.94 (0.87, 1.00)
 MPR2 0.77 (0.66, 0.88) 0.82 (0.72, 0.92) 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) 0.96 (0.91, 1.00)
Thresholds on ROC analysis
 MBF (mL/min/mL) 2.49 1.75 2.60 2.00
 MPR 1.76 1.45 1.88 1.59
 MPR2 1.36 1.07 1.49 1.47
P values from comparisons of ROC curves between haemodynamic parameters
 MBF vs MPR 0.81 0.54 0.80 0.35
 MBF vs MPR2 0.04* 0.19 0.45 0.68
 MPR vs MPR2 0.0022* 0.20 0.17 0.33
Difference in AUC of ROC curves between haemodynamic parameters
 MBF vs MPR -0.01 (-0.10, 0.08) -0.03 (-0.11, 0.05) 0.01 (-0.06, 0.08) 0.03 (-0.03, 0.09)
 MBF vs MPR2 -0.09 (-0.18, 0.01) -0.06 (-0.14, 0.02) -0.03 (-0.10, 0.04) 0.01 (-0.04, 0.06)
 MPR vs MPR2 -0.08 (-0.16, 0.01) -0.03 (-0.09, 0.02) -0.04 (-0.09, 0.01) -0.02 (-0.06, 0.02)
  1. Statistically significant differences are indicated with * and † († show at least two orders of magnitude smaller P values compared to *, both in per vessel and per patient analysis). Parentheses show (95 % confidence intervals). MBF myocardial blood flow, MPR myocardial perfusion reserve, MPR 2 myocardial perfusion reserve of the two lowest scoring segments, AUC area under the curve, DP distributed parameter modeling, G1 Group 1, G2 Group 2