Skip to main content

Table 5 Within and between methods mean distance repeatabilities and mean raw and absolute differences for the image compacting factor comparison and the filter type comparison

From: Landmark precision and reliability and accuracy of linear distances estimated by using 3D computed micro-tomography and the open-source TINA Manual Landmarking Tool software

Mean distance repeatabilities

Within

S2

S3

S2/D2

S3/D2

AL0.5

AL1.0

 

0.97 ± 0.02

0.98 ± 0.03

0.97 ± 0.02

0.97 ± 0.02

0.95 ± 0.04

0.93 ± 0.10

Between

S2 + S3

S2 + S2/D2

S2 + S3/D2

S3 + S2/D2

S3 + S3/D2

AL0.5 ± AL1.0

 

0.95 ± 0.03

0.95 ± 0.03

0.95 ± 0.04

0.95 ± 0.03

0.95 ± 0.04

0.83 ± 0.16

Mean differences (mm)

Within

S2

S3

S2/D2

S3/D2

AL0.5

AL1.0

Raw

−0.002 ± 0.02

−0.003 ± 0.01

0.008 ± 0.02

0.006 ± 0.02

0.0 ± 0.02

0.003 ± 0.03

Absolute

0.7 ± 0.02

0.06 ± 0.02

0.07 ± 0.02

0.07 ± 0.02

0.07 ± 0.02

0.07 ± 0.03

Between

S2-S3

S2-S2/D2

S2-S3/D2

S3-S2/D2

S3-S3/D2

AL0.5-AL1.0

Raw

−0.01 ± 0.13

0.0 ± 0.12

0.0 ± 0.13

0.02 ± 0.13

0.02 ± 0.13

−0.03 ± 0.21

Absolute

0.10 ± 0.04

0.09 ± 0.04

0.10 ± 0.04

0.10 ± 0.06

0.10 ± 0.05

0.14 ± 0.05

% of mean

2.3 ± 0.9

2.3 ± 1.1

2.4 ± 1.0

2.4 ± 1.1

2.3 ± 1.0

3.4 ± 2.0

  1. The four distinct values of the image compacting factors stride and down- sample were: (S2): stride = 2.0; (S3): stride = 3.0; (S2/D2): stride = 2.0 and down-sample = 2.0 and (S3/D2): stride = 2.0 and down-sample = 3.0. The two different scanning filters were: aluminum 0.5 mm (AL0.5) and aluminum 1.0 mm (AL1.0). Within and between methods mean ± s.d. distance repeatabilities and mean ± s.d. raw and absolute difference were calculated, as well as mean percentage error in relation to the distances means of the between methods error