Table 5:

Abnormal perfusion-weighted imaging findings in patients among the different arterial input function estimation methods

Patient No.LocalRegionalRegional ScaledGlobal
HypoHyperCongNormHypoHyperCongNormHypoHyperCongNormHypoHyperCongNorm
10010010000010001
20010001000101010
30010101001101110
40010010001000100
51010100001101010
61000100011001000
70001101001100010
80010001000100010
90010011001100110
100100010001000100
111110111001000110
121110011001000110
131100110011001100
141110111001101110
151000110011001000
161110101001101010
171000100001001110
181100010001000100
191000000100010001
201010101001101010
210010001000100110
220110111001101110
230010001011001000
240110011000100010
250001100011001000
261000100001000100
271100111011001010
280100010001000100
291100010001001100
301000100010001000
310110010001100100
320001000110001010
330010011000011000
  • Note:—O indicates absent; 1, present. Only 5 of 33 patients (15%) had identical perfusion-weighted imaging abnormalities among the different arterial input function methods (shaded areas). Hypo indicates hypoperfusion; Hyper, hyperperfusion; Cong, venous congestion; Norm, normal.