Table 6.
Liver segmentation submissions of LiTS–MICCAI 2017 and LiTS–MICCAI–MSD 2018 ranked by Dice score and ASD. Top-performing teams in liver segmentation tasks are highlighted with blue in each metric. A ranking score follows each metric value in the bracket. Re-ranking* denotes a post-challenge ranking considering two metrics by averaging the ranking scores. Notably only consider Dice and RVD are considered as the volume difference of the liver is not of interest, as opposed to the liver tumor.
| Ranking | Ref. Name | Dice | ASD | Re-ranking* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LiTS–MICCAI 2017 | 1 | Y. Yuan et al. | 0.963 (1) | 1.104 (1) | 2 (1) |
| 2 | A. Ben-Cohen et al. | 0.962 (2) | 1.130 (2) | 4 (2) | |
| 3 | J. Zou et al. | 0.961 (3) | 1.268 (4) | 7 (3) | |
| 4 | X. Li et al. | 0.961 (3) | 1.692 (8) | 10 (4) | |
| 5 | L. Zhang et al. | 0.960 (4) | 1.510 (7) | 11 (5) | |
| 6 | G. Chlebus et al. | 0.960 (4) | 1.150 (3) | 7 (3) | |
| 7 | J. Wu et al. | 0.959 (5) | 1.311 (5) | 10 (4) | |
| 8 | C. Wang et al. | 0.958 (6) | 1.367 (6) | 12 (6) | |
| 9 | E. Vorontsov et al. | 0.951 (7) | 1.785 (9) | 16 (7) | |
| 10 | K. Kaluva et al. | 0.950 (8) | 1.880 (10) | 18 (8) | |
| 11 | K. Roth et al. | 0.946 (9) | 1.890 (11) | 20 (9) | |
| 12 | X. Han et al. | 0.943 (10) | 2.890 (12) | 22 (10) | |
| 13 | J. Lipkova et al. | 0.938 (11) | 3.540 (13) | 24 (11) | |
| 14 | L. Bi et al. | 0.934 (12) | 258.598 (15) | 26 (12) | |
| 15 | M. Piraud et al. | 0.767 (13) | 37.450 (14) | 26 (12) | |
| 16 | J. Ma et al. | 0.041 (14) | 8231.318 (15) | 29 (13) | |
| LiTS–MICCAI-MSD 2018 | 1 | F. Isensee et al. | 0.962 (1) | 2.565 (9) | 10 (5) |
| 2 | Z. Xu et al. | 0.959 (2) | 1.342 (1) | 3 (1) | |
| 3 | D. Xu et al. | 0.959 (2) | 1.722 (5) | 7 (3) | |
| 4 | B. Park et al. | 0.955 (3) | 1.651 (4) | 7 (3) | |
| 5 | S. Chen et al. | 0.954 (4) | 1.386 (2) | 6 (2) | |
| 6 | R. Chen et al. | 0.954 (5) | 1.435 (3) | 8 (4) | |
| 7 | M. Perslev et al. | 0.953 (6) | 2.360 (8) | 14 (6) | |
| 8 | I. Kim et al. | 0.948 (7) | 2.942 (12) | 19 (8) | |
| 9 | O. Kodym et al. | 0.942 (8) | 2.710 (11) | 19 (8) | |
| 10 | F. Jia et al. | 0.942 (9) | 2.198 (6) | 15 (7) | |
| 11 | S. Kim et al. | 0.934 (10) | 6.937 (14) | 24 (10) | |
| 12 | W. Bae et al. | 0.934 (11) | 2.615 (10) | 21 (9) | |
| 13 | Y. Wang et al. | 0.926 (12) | 2.313 (7) | 19 (8) | |
| 14 | I. Sarasua et al. | 0.924 (13) | 6.273 (13) | 26 (11) | |
| 15 | O. Rippel et al. | 0.904 (14) | 16.163 (16) | 30 (12) | |
| 16 | R. Rezaeifar et al. | 0.864 (15) | 9.358 (15) | 30 (12) | |
| 17 | J. Ma et al. | 0.706 (16) | 159.314 (17) | 33 (13) |