Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 5.
Published in final edited form as: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2023 Oct 1;14222:561–571. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-43898-1_54

Table 2.

Quantitative comparisons for liver segmentation on the Multi-phasic MRI dataset. The best results are indicated in bold.

Method Average Method Average
DSC ↑ Jaccard ↑ 95HD ↓ ASD ↓ DSC ↑ Jaccard ↑ 95HD ↓ ASD ↓
3D-UNet (Baseline) [4] 89.19 81.21 34.97 10.63 UNETR (Baseline) [5] 89.95 82.17 24.64 6.04
 + PointRend [9] 89.55 81.80 30.88 10.12 + PointRend [9] 90.49 82.36 21.06 5.59
 + Implicit PointRend [3] 88.01 79.83 37.55 12.86 + Implicit PointRend [3] 88.72 80.18 26.63 10.58
 + Ours (MoE) 89.81 82.06 29.96 10.15 + Ours (MoE) 90.70 82.80 15.31 5.93
 + Ours (SMoE) 90.16 82.28 28.36 9.79 + Ours (SMoE) 91.02 83.29 15.12 5.64
 + Ours (IAR) 91.22 83.30 27.84 8.89 + Ours (IAR) 91.63 83.83 14.25 4.99
 + Ours (IAR+MoE) 92.77 83.94 26.57 7.51 + Ours (IAR+MoE) 93.01 84.70 13.29 4.84
 + Ours (MORSE) 93.59 84.62 19.61 6.57 + Ours (MORSE) 93.85 85.53 12.33 4.38