Skip to main content

Table 5 Estimated parameters, Goodness-of-fit statistics and dose reduction of GWrank

From: Regression models for analyzing radiological visual grading studies – an empirical comparison

Model Coefficient Goodness-of-fit Dose Reduction
logCTDI id2 id4 AIC Pseudo R2 id2 id4
  Est. P-value Est. P-value Est. P-value
regressa 4.482 <0.001 0.850 <0.001 0.696 <0.001 - 0.0959 17.27 % 14.38 %
(3.981, 4.983) (0.673, 1.027) (0.518, 0.873) (14.44 %, 20.11 %) (11.44 %, 17.32 %)
ologita 9.247 <0.001 1.780 <0.001 1.531 <0.001 2462.68 0.1138 17.51 % 15.26 %
(8.126, 10.368) (1.428, 2.132) (1.168, 1.894) (14.99 %, 20.02 %) (12.51 %, 18.01 %)
rologita 5.537 <0.001 1.232 <0.001 0.932 <0.001 1303.66 0.1493 19.95 % 15.49 %
(4.734, 6.340) (0.969, 1.495) (0.666, 1.197) (17.06 %, 22.84 %) (12.24 %, 18.74 %)
mixedb 4.482 <0.001 0.850 <0.001 0.696 <0.001 2670.66 0.0000 17.27 % 14.38 %
(3.995, 4.970) (0.677, 1.023) (0.523, 0.869) (14.51 %, 20.04 %) (11.51 %, 17.24 %)
meologitb 9.267 <0.001 1.751 <0.001 1.549 <0.001 2452.89 0.0320 17.22 % 15.40 %
(8.991, 9.543) (1.416, 2.086) (1.214, 1.885) (14.36 %, 20.07 %) (12.43 %, 18.36 %)
  1. 95 % confidence limits of each estimate given in parentheses
  2. aregression model with fixed effects only
  3. bregression model with fixed and random effects