Table 2.
Quantitative analysis of sCTs from MC-IDDPM vs. MC-GAN, MC-CGAN, 2D-IDDPM, 3D-DDIM, and 3D-DDPM using the institutional prostate dataset. The table highlights the best-performing network(s), indicated in bold, and the second-best network(s), underlined, based on the mean evaluation results. P-values are shown below each competing method.
| MAE (HU) | PSNR (dB) | SSIM | NCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC-IDDPM | 55.124±9.414 | 28.708±2.112 | 0.878±0.040 | 0.940±0.039 |
| p-value | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
|
| ||||
| MC-GAN | 80.366±28.880 | 24.712±2.970 | 0.800±0.050 | 0.846±0.068 |
| p-value | <0.010 | <0.010 | <0.010 | <0.010 |
|
| ||||
| MC-CGAN | 68.278±19.948 | 26.023±2.781 | 0.852±0.043 | 0.884±0.061 |
| p-value | <0.010 | <0.010 | 0.024 | <0.010 |
|
| ||||
| 2D-IDDPM | 64.197±10.183 | 27.786±2.069 | 0.863±0.038 | 0.930±0.040 |
| p-value | <0.010 | 0.070 | 0.108 | 0.182 |
|
| ||||
| 3D-DDIM | 64.426±9.869 | 28.124±1.953 | 0.861±0.040 | 0.932±0.046 |
| p-value | <0.010 | 0.176 | 0.093 | 0.381 |
|
| ||||
| 3D-DDPM | 73.696±16.794 | 26.754±2.047 | 0.839±0.031 | 0.912±0.051 |
| p-value | <0.010 | <0.010 | <0.010 | 0.020 |