. 2023 Jun 8;14(7):3190–3202. doi: 10.1364/BOE.492670

Table 3. MASD $\pm$ standard deviation evaluated on JHU MS test set and the ablation study.

Methods	Overall	ILM	RNFL-GCL	IPL-INL	INL-OPL	OPL-ONL	ELM	IS-OS	OS-RPE	BM
Method comparison: MASD (mean absolute surface distance) ^a $\pm$ standard deviation ( $μ m$ ) errors
FCRN [29]	2.83 $\pm$ 1.48	2.41 $\pm$ 0.81	2.96 $\pm$ 1.70	2.87 $\pm$ 1.69	3.19 $\pm$ 1.49	2.72 $\pm$ 1.70	2.65 $\pm$ 1.14	2.01 $\pm$ 0.88	3.55 $\pm$ 1.73	3.10 $\pm$ 2.21
IPM [31]	2.78 $\pm$ 0.85	2.32 $\pm$ 0.27	3.07 $\pm$ 0.68	2.86 $\pm$ 0.33	3.24 $\pm$ 0.60	2.73 $\pm$ 0.57	2.63 $\pm$ 0.51	1.97 $\pm$ 0.57	3.35 $\pm$ 0.83	2.88 $\pm$ 1.63
Ours	2.75 $\pm$ 0.94	2.35 $\pm$ 0.38	2.89 $\pm$ 0.69	2.83 $\pm$ 0.41	3.03 $\pm$ 0.48	2.74 $\pm$ 0.62	2.57 $\pm$ 0.68	2.02 $\pm$ 0.80	3.31 $\pm$ 0.77	2.99 $\pm$ 1.99
Ablation Experiment: MASD $\pm$ standard deviation ( $μ m$ ) errors
OursWithoutDDP	2.77 $\pm$ 0.96	2.33 $\pm$ 0.30	2.91 $\pm$ 0.61	2.79 $\pm$ 0.39	3.12 $\pm$ 0.58	2.69 $\pm$ 0.61	2.62 $\pm$ 0.79	2.05 $\pm$ 0.98	3.45 $\pm$ 0.92	2.94 $\pm$ 1.87
Ablation $p -values$ analysis for the MASD errors
Ours vs. OursWithoutDDP	2.30e-56	4.94e-05	5.20e-03	1.59e-27	1.47e-111	2.33e-30	1.95e-74	1.13e-41	7.21e-264	1.65e-34

^{^a}

Bold fonts indicate the best in its column in method comparison.

ILM: inner limiting membrane; RNFL: retinal nerve fiber layer; GCL: ganglion cell layer; IPL: inner plexiform layer; INL: inner nuclear layer;

OPL: outer plexiform layer; ONL: outer nuclear layer; ELM: external limiting membrane; IS: inner segment; OS: outer segment;

RPE: retinal pigment epithelium; BM: Bruch membrane.

Table 3. MASD ± standard deviation evaluated on JHU MS test set and the ablation study.