68-5

35/120

guide selection at the locations in which the diaphragm was attached to the liver and chest wall (Figure 3b and 4b).For the removal of invisible areas, the 3D cutting function was used to remove air and fat tissue, which were selectively extracted the diaphragm in invisible areas. For the diaphragm volume measurement, in the final step, the diaphragm volume was measured using the 3D volumetry function (Figure 3), and observer #1 recorded three separate measurements for each case at AZE Virtual Place (AZE Co., Tokyo, Japan) using the same method. ICCs and interobserver correlations were then determined.Statistical analysesSPSS software (version 25.0; SPSS Statistics, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to perform the statistical analyses. All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) or 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the signifi-cance level was set at less than 1%. The ICCs of each observer and between both observers were Figure 5　Diaphragm morphology and volume after reconstruction in case #4. The first measurement of (a) observer #1 and (b) observer #2 by workstation software PixSpace.Figure 6　Diaphragm morphology and volume after reconstruction in case #4. The first measurements of (a) observer #1 by workstation software AZE and (b) observer #2 by workstation software PixSpace.from analyzed. The one-way random effects model with participant effects as random was applied to the ICCs of each observer, and a two-way random effects model with both participant effects and measure effects as random was applied to the ICCs of the interobserver differences. ICCs were inter-preted following guidelines by Koo and Li (2016)26) and classified as follows: below 0.50, poor; between 0.50 and 0.74, moderate; between 0.75 and 0.90, good; and above 0.90, excellent. Age, weight, height, body mass index, and body surface area were normally distributed. In all cases, the diaphragm could be separated from the heart, lungs, liver, stomach, and other surrounding tissues, and the diaphragm volume could be evaluated (Figure 5 and 6).Table 1 summarizes the detailed results and the average of all measurements by workstation soft-ware PixSpace according to the observer. The intraobserver agreement for the three measurements was excellent for observer #1, based on a Cron-485Results