Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 May 2.
Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2023 May 2;42(5):1325–1336. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3226604

TABLE I.

Quantitative assessment on different methods (MEAN ± STD). For each metric, the best result is marked in red, and the second best result is marked in blue. The measurements were obtained by averaging the values on the 20 testing canine studies. Slices that do not contain the heart are excluded from calculations. For IMBV calculations, numbers that are closest to the IY-PVC results are considered the best.

Non-PVC U-net Dy-U Dy-U-BV DC-Dy-U-BV Dy-U-CT Dy-U-CT-BV iY-PVC
IMBV 0.209 ± 0.042 0.193 ± 0.038 0.185 ± 0.037 0.174 ± 0.036 0.169 ± 0.034 0.172 ± 0.033 0.166 ± 0.033 0.167 ± 0.033 (Reference)
PSNR 35.552 ± 2.095 37.130 ± 2.485 37.641 ± 2.803 37.686 ± 2.642 37.748 ± 2.804 40.319 ± 3.598 40.434 ± 3.662
SSIM 0.967 ± 0.016 0.979 ± 0.014 0.9822 ± 0.0155 0.983 ± 0.015 0.9824 ± 0.015 0.9873 ± 0.0166 0.9875 ± 0.0166
RMSE 0.017 ± 0.006 0.015 ± 0.006 0.0139 ± 0.0062 0.0138 ± 0.0060 0.0137 ± 0.0061 0.0107 ± 0.0067 0.0106 ± 0.0067