Table 4.

Comparison with state-of-the-art methods using full annotation on the OAI ZIB dataset with five-fold cross validation. Paired t-test values indicate the significance status of the improved performance of our method vs. the ensemble method (Zheng et al., 2020b).

	Femoral bone		Femoral cartilage		Tibial bone		Tibial cartilage
	DSC (%)	ASSD (mm)	DSC (%)	ASSD (mm)	DSC (%)	ASSD (mm)	DSC (%)	ASSD (mm)
Ensemble method (Zheng et al., 2020b)	98.49 ± 0.30	0.182 ± 0.046	89.26 ± 3.08	0.176 ± 0.067	98.60 ± 0.30	0.172 ± 0.049	86.36 ± 3.88	0.196 ± 0.081
UNet++ 3D (Zhou et al., 2018)	98.44 ± 0.31	0.190 ± 0.047	89.19 ± 2.74	0.174 ± 0.052	98.57 ± 0.31	0.222 ± 0.340	84.96 ± 4.55	0.226 ± 0.102
TransUNet 3D (Chen et al., 2021)	98.47 ± 0.29	0.188 ± 0.048	89.25 ± 2.94	0.173 ± 0.060	98.61 ± 0.30	0.171 ± 0.050	85.34 ± 4.24	0.240 ± 0.114
Attention UNet 3D (Oktay et al., 2018)	98.55 ± 0.30	0.174 ± 0.048	89.56 ± 2.64	0.169 ± 0.059	98.70 ± 0.31	0.162 ± 0.067	86.74 ± 4.01	0.196 ± 0.089
Our KCB-Net method	98.62 ± 0.26	0.164 ± 0.039	90.24 ± 2.76	0.153 ± 0.049	98.76 ± 0.30	0.149 ± 0.048	87.19 ± 3.96	0.185 ± 0.085
p-value	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	≪ 0.001	0.006