![osirix windows 8.1 osirix windows 8.1](https://www.santesoft.com/win/sante-dicom-editor/img/cross_reference.png)
The CSMA measured with FatSeg (1) and OsiriX (2), resulting in Jaccard similarity coefficients of 1.000 and 0.95 3, respectively. The green area represents similarity, whereas the red area represents discrepancy in measurements. Jaccard similarity coefficients (lowest and highest are shown) for intra‐observer comparisons of CSMA, VAT, and SAT (cm 2) measurements (reading 1 versus reading 2 of observer A). The SAT measured with OsiriX (1) and ImageJ (2), resulting in Jaccard similarity coefficients of 1.000 and 0.899, respectively. The VAT measured with FatSeg (1) and OsiriX (2), resulting in Jaccard similarity coefficients of 0.998 and 0.835, respectively. The CSMA measured with FatSeg (1) and ImageJ (2), resulting in Jaccard similarity coefficients of 0.997 and 0.931, respectively. Jaccard similarity coefficients (lowest and highest are shown) for inter‐observer comparisons of CSMA, VAT, and SAT (cm 2) measurements (reading 1 of observer A versus reading 1 of observer B). There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.175 and p = 0.939, respectively). There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.511 and p = 0.305, respectively).
![osirix windows 8.1 osirix windows 8.1](https://www.osirix-viewer.com/wp2015/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MedicalImageSupport-1024x576.png)
There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.853 and p = 0.344, respectively). There was proportional systematic bias for observer A (p = 0.031), whereas there was no proportional systematic bias for observer B (p = 0.134). There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.538 and p = 0.112, respectively). There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.534 and p = 0.801, respectively). The dotted lines are the mean of the difference and the 95% limits of agreement (☒ SD) between the SAT of reading 1 of observer A and the solid lines of reading 1 of observer B.
![osirix windows 8.1 osirix windows 8.1](https://medevel.com/content/images/2019/06/sante-1.png)
#OSIRIX WINDOWS 8.1 SOFTWARE#
Bland‐Altman 95% limits of agreement plots for the agreement between the various software programs (provided on the X‐axes and Y‐axes) for SAT (cm 2). There was no proportional systematic bias for observer A (p = 0.068), whereas there was significant bias for observer B (p = 0.014). There was no proportional systematic bias for any observer (p = 0.412 and p = 0.114, respectively). There was proportional systematic bias for observer A (p = 0.045), whereas there was no proportional systematic bias for observer B (p = 0.202). There was proportional systematic bias for both observers (both p = 0.002).
![osirix windows 8.1 osirix windows 8.1](https://img.yumpu.com/5243392/1/184x260/osirix-history.jpg)
There was proportional systematic bias for observer A (p = 0.038), but not for observer B (p = 0.154). There was proportional systematic bias for both observers (p = 0.004 and p = 0.043, respectively). The dotted lines are the mean of the difference and the 95% limits of agreement (☒ SD) between the VAT of reading 1 of observer A and the solid lines of reading 1 of observer B Bland‐Altman 95% limits of agreement plots for the agreement between the various software programs (provided on the X‐axes and Y‐axes) for VAT (cm 2).