Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Radiol. Sep 28, 2026; 18(9): 123720
Published online Sep 28, 2026. doi: 10.4329/wjr.123720
Published online Sep 28, 2026. doi: 10.4329/wjr.123720
Table 1 The intraclass correlation coefficient between the two observers in each liver volume program
| Item | n | ICC | 95%CI |
| Syngo.via TLV | 30 | 0.999 | 0.997-0.999 |
| Syngo.via SII/III | 30 | 0.958 | 0.912-0.980 |
| OsiriX® TLV | 30 | 0.996 | 0.992-0.998 |
| OsiriX® SII/III | 30 | 0.977 | 0.952-0.989 |
| Synapse 3D TLV | 30 | 0.999 | 0.998-0.999 |
| Synapse 3D SII/III | 30 | 0.975 | 0.948-0.988 |
Table 2 Liver segmentation volumes from the observers and n = 30 scans, median (interquartile range)
| Item | Observer 1 | Observer 2 | P value | Median percent difference between observers |
| OsiriX® | ||||
| TLV | 1523 (1436-1846) | 1513 (1422-1812) | 0.019 | 1.4 (-0.7 to 2.5) |
| SII/III | 289 (228-349) | 287 (222-347) | 0.020 | -4.4 (-8.4 to 0.8) |
| Time in secs | 480 (420-600) | 660 (540-720) | 0.013 | - |
| Syngo.via | ||||
| TLV | 1524 (1392-1873) | 1544 (1417-1894) | < 0.001 | -0.9 (-2.2 to 0.0) |
| SII/III | 253 (215-290) | 282 (215-329) | 0.002 | -6.4 (-13.9 to 1.0) |
| Time in secs | 390 (255-420) | 180 (180-240) | < 0.001 | - |
| Synapse 3D | ||||
| TLV | 1525 (1428-1945) | 1530 (1463-1955) | 0.006 | -0.13 (-1.7 to 1.3) |
| SII/III | 284 (236-350) | 316 (263-367) | < 0.001 | -10.4 (-13.8 to 6.1) |
| Time in secs | 240 (180-300) | 180 (120-180) | 0.003 | - |
Table 3 The intraclass correlation coefficient between the three liver volumetry software programs for all scans (n = 200)
| Item | ICC | 95%CI | P value |
| Syngo.via vs OsiriX® TLV | 0.989 | 0.933-0.996 | < 0.001 |
| Synapse 3D vs OsiriX® TLV | 0.990 | 0.655-0.997 | < 0.001 |
| Synapse 3D vs Syngo.via TLV | 0.997 | 0.985-0.999 | < 0.001 |
| Syngo.via vs OsiriX® SII/III | 0.944 | 0.927-0.958 | < 0.001 |
| Synapse 3D vs OsiriX® SII/III | 0.939 | 0.715-0.975 | < 0.001 |
| Synapse 3D vs Syngo.via SII/III | 0.937 | 0.834-0.968 | < 0.001 |
Table 4 Differences in mean volumes among Syngo.via, OsiriX® and Syngo.via for all scans, mean ± SD
| Item | Mean differences in mL | Mean percent differences | P value |
| TLV | |||
| OsiriX® vs Syngo.via | -45.3 ± 49.0 | -2.6 ± 3.0 | < 0.001 |
| OsiriX® vs Synapse 3D | -78.5 ± 48.8 | -3.9 ± 3.6 | < 0.001 |
| Syngo.via vs Synapse 3D | -33.2 ± 42.0 | -1.7 ± 3.9 | < 0.001 |
| SII/III | |||
| OsiriX® vs Syngo.via | -4.4 ± 36.0 | -0.8 ± 14.0 | 0.111 |
| OsiriX® vs Synapse 3D | -26.2 ± 29.8 | -8.5 ± 9.5 | < 0.001 |
| Syngo.via vs Synapse 3D | -21.8 ± 33.6 | -6.8 ± 11.1 | < 0.001 |
- Citation: van der Velden AL, Knapen RRMM, James S, Rahmani H, Brecheisen R, van Kuijk SMJ, Wildberger JE, van Dam RM, van der Leij C. Comparing the reliability of three software programmes for manual and (semi-)automatic volumetry in healthy livers. World J Radiol 2026; 18(9): 123720
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v18/i9/123720.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.123720