. 2023 Dec 5;45(1):e26548. doi: 10.1002/hbm.26548

TABLE 3.

Summary of performance metric comparisons between SHIVA‐WMH against the three reference methods separately for each test cohort.

	Mean (SD)
	VL‐TPR	VL‐PPV	VL‐Dice	CL‐TPR	CL‐PPV	CL‐Dice	HD95
MRi‐Share (n = 10)
SHIVA	0.55 (0.25)	0.66 (0.22)	0.55 (0.19)	0.52 (0.18)	0.91 (0.11)	0.64 (0.14)	3.25 (4.46)
LST‐LPA	0.06^*** (0.11)	0.15^*** (0.19)	0.07^**** (0.11)	0.10^*** (0.14)	0.08^**** (0.11)	0.08^**** (0.10)	7.82 (7.53)
PGS	0.32^** (0.17)	0.19^**** (0.14)	0.21^*** (0.13)	0.50 (0.15)	0.15^**** (0.11)	0.22^**** (0.12)	2.13 (1.21)
HPM	0.10^** (0.12)	0.32^* (0.37)	0.12^*** (0.14)	0.22^* (0.26)	0.29^*** (0.33)	0.16^**** (0.13)	5.74 (5.56)
UKB (n = 11)
SHIVA	0.58 (0.12)	0.83 (0.16)	0.66 (0.10)	0.72 (0.09)	0.78 (0.22)	0.73 (0.15)	2.87 (3.16)
LST‐LPA	0.22^*** (0.16)	0.57^* (0.37)	0.31^*** (0.22)	0.16^**** (0.09)	0.37^*** (0.25)	0.18^**** (0.06)	3.92 (1.61)
PGS	0.57 (0.10)	0.60^* (0.31)	0.56 (0.23)	0.73 (0.11)	0.52^** (0.27)	0.57^* (0.23)	5.38 (11.70)
HPM	0.34^** (0.15)	0.66 (0.36)	0.44^* (0.21)	0.28^*** (0.20)	0.64 (0.28)	0.35^*** (0.18)	2.94 (0.87)
MWC (n = 10)
SHIVA	0.76 (0.15)	0.78 (0.12)	0.76 (0.11)	0.74 (0.09)	0.81 (0.13)	0.76 (0.06)	2.31 (1.72)
LST‐LPA	0.63 (0.32)	0.71 (0.23)	0.58 (0.24)	0.34^** (0.25)	0.66 (0.23)	0.38^*** (0.17)	3.62 (2.73)
HPM	0.57 (0.19)	0.93 ^* (0.06)	0.68 (0.17)	0.25^**** (0.09)	0.80 (0.15)	0.38^**** (0.11)	2.19 (1.01)

Note: Mean and standard deviations (SD) of each metric in each test cohort are shown for SHIVA‐WMH and the three reference methods (LST‐LPA, PGS, HPM). For each metric in each cohort, 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.

^{^****}

p < .0001.

^{^***}

.0001 ⩽ p < .001.

^{^**}

.001 ⩽ p < .01.

^{^*}

.01 ⩽ p < .05.