Overview of significant and most important results
| Main Results Summarized |
|---|
| • The intra- and interobserver variability was significantly lower for the semiautomated method than for the manual method. |
| • The semiautomated method correlated well with the manual method (r = 0.87) but underestimated the degree of stenosis by 6.2% on average. |
| • The semiautomated measurements overestimated the minimal diameter near calcifications and underestimated the minimal diameter in the absence of calcifications. |
| • 16% of the used centerlines were incorrect, mainly due to the presence of calcifications. |
| • The automated method was more convenient to use and approximately 1.5 times as fast as the manual method. |
| • This semiautomated stenosis approach for the measurement of the degree of stenosis is very promising but not yet suitable for incautious use in daily clinical practice. |