Table 1. MASD $\pm$ standard deviation evaluated on Duke AMD test set and the ablation study.

		Normal Group				AMD Group
Methods	TotalMean	GroupMean	ILM	InnerRPEDC	OBM	GroupMean	ILM	InnerRPEDC	OBM
Method comparison: MASD (mean absolute surface distance) $\pm$ standard deviation ( $\mu m$ ) a
G-OSC [5]	–	–	3.85 $\pm$ 0.16	4.56 $\pm$ 0.35	–	–	4.43 $\pm$ 0.71	9.33 $\pm$ 1.74	–
CNN-S [44]	–	–	2.88 $\pm$ 0.22	4.14 $\pm$ 0.32	–	–	3.43 $\pm$ 0.35	5.92 $\pm$ 0.84	–
CNN-S-2 [25]	–	4.07 $\pm$ 0.55	3.36 $\pm$ 0.23	3.84 $\pm$ 0.58	4.97 $\pm$ 1.01	5.20 $\pm$ 1.58	3.71 $\pm$ 0.77	6.07 $\pm$ 1.84	5.58 $\pm$ 1.80
FCRN [30] b	2.78 $\pm$ 3.31	–	1.24 $\pm$ 0.51	2.06 $\pm$ 1.51	2.28 $\pm$ 0.36	–	1.73 $\pm$ 2.50	3.09 $\pm$ 2.09	4.94 $\pm$ 5.35
Hybrid2D3D [30]	2.71 $\pm$ 2.25	–	1.26 $\pm$ 0.47	2.10 $\pm$ 1.36	2.40 $\pm$ 0.39	–	1.76 $\pm$ 2.39	3.04 $\pm$ 1.79	4.43 $\pm$ 2.68
Ours	1.88 $\pm$ 1.96	1.41 $\pm$ 0.89	0.55 $\pm$ 0.41	1.57 $\pm$ 0.90	2.10 $\pm$ 0.45	2.08 $\pm$ 2.25	1.38 $\pm$ 3.17	1.80 $\pm$ 1.10	3.06 $\pm$ 1.61
Ablation Experiment: MASD $\pm$ standard deviation ( $\mu m$ )
OursWithoutDDP	1.90 $\pm$ 2.10	1.43 $\pm$ 0.93	0.56 $\pm$ 0.24	1.64 $\pm$ 1.06	2.10 $\pm$ 0.46	2.10 $\pm$ 2.42	1.47 $\pm$ 3.65	1.83 $\pm$ 1.04	3.00 $\pm$ 1.45
Ablation $p\text{-values}$ analysis for the MASD errors
Ours vs. OursWithoutDDP	1.43e-08	1.06e-13	3.23e-02	3.82e-24	9.78e-01	6.81e-04	9.23e-26	1.00e-03	2.24e-23

^a Bold fonts indicate the best in its column. “-” indicates no reported results in the corresponding literature.

^b The results were obtained from the re-implementation of FCRN in Ref. [30].