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