TABLE 2.
Comparison of SHIVA‐WMH against three reference methods across the 31 test subjects for each performance metric.
| Mean (SD) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VL‐TPR | VL‐PPV | VL‐Dice | CL‐TPR | CL‐PPV | CL‐Dice | HD95 | |
| All (N = 31 a ) | |||||||
| SHIVA | 0.63 (0.20) | 0.76 (0.18) | 0.66 (0.16) | 0.66 (0.16) | 0.83 (0.17) | 0.71 (0.13) | 2.82 (3.21) |
| LST‐LPA | 0.30**** (0.32) | 0.48** (0.36) | 0.32**** (0.29) | 0.20**** (0.20) | 0.37**** (0.31) | 0.21**** (0.17) | 4.55 (3.93) |
| PGS | 0.45* (0.18) | 0.41**** (0.32) | 0.39*** (0.26) | 0.62 (0.17) | 0.34**** (0.28) | 0.40**** (0.26) | 3.83 (8.48) |
| HPM | 0.34**** (0.24) | 0.64 (0.38) | 0.42*** (0.29) | 0.25**** (0.19) | 0.58** (0.33) | 0.30**** (0.17) | 3.45 (3.24) |
Note: Mean and standard deviations (SD) of each metric across all the test subjects are shown for SHIVA‐WMH and the three reference methods (LST‐LPA, PGS, HPM). For each metric, best scores are indicated in bold. Asterisk indicates the degree of statistical significance for each paired t test comparing SHIVA‐WMH against each of the reference methods.
a
Comparison with PGS was performed in 21 test subjects that excluded subjects from MWC.
****
p < .0001.
***
.0001 ⩽ p < .001.
**
.001 ⩽ p < .01.
*
.01 ⩽ p < .05.