Final scoring
| Method | Physiological concept | ||||
| AAR ≥ IS | AAR=IS* | Correlation with transmurality | Line of identity fit† | Final score | |
| Aldrich | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| BARI | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 |
| APPROACH | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 |
| T2w-CMR | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 15 |
| ESA | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 20 |
↵* In near transmural infarcts.
↵† Salvage=100% − transmurality.
AAR, area at risk; ESA, infarct endocardial surface area; IS, infarct size; T2w-CMR, T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Each AAR method was ranked and given a relative score from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) according to how well they agreed with specified physiologic concepts. BARI and T2w-CMR were given an equal score of 3 as their performance was similar for the concept AAR≥IS (both 87%, first column). The last column shows the final scores after summation. The ESA method performed best, followed by the T2w-CMR, APPROACH, BARI and Aldrich methods.