Skip to main content
. 2025 Apr 25;15(5):4217–4234. doi: 10.21037/qims-24-2300

Table 3. Quantitative comparison on the BraTS 2021 dataset.

Methods WT TC ET Average
DSC↑ HD95↓ (mm) DSC↑ HD95↓ (mm) DSC↑ HD95↓ (mm) DSC↑ HD95↓ (mm)
Attention-UNet (9) 0.910 8.990 0.869 6.572 0.841 5.302 0.873 6.952
DAUnet (14) 0.899 6.700 0.844 6.600 0.776 14.400 0.839 9.233
SegResNet (15) 0.917 6.113 0.896 5.790 0.861 5.423 0.891 5.781
nnUNet (16) 0.926 3.550 0.874 10.560 0.837 22.440 0.879 12.183
TransBTS (20) 0.920 4.980 0.882 4.860 0.795 16.320 0.866 8.720
TransUNet (21) 0.919 6.162 0.877 7.340 0.818 13.090 0.872 8.860
UNETR (22) 0.890 14.423 0.847 10.221 0.825 8.785 0.854 11.142
SwinUNETR (23) 0.926 5.831 0.885 3.770 0.858 6.016 0.890 5.206
SwinBTS (38) 0.918 3.650 0.848 14.510 0.832 16.030 0.866 11.397
CKD-TransBTS (24) 0.923 4.230 0.881 4.390 0.848 3.160 0.884 3.927
FCFDiff-Net 0.926* 2.156* 0.903* 1.834* 0.869* 1.583* 0.899* 1.858*

Higher DSC scores (↑) indicate better segmentation, while lower HD95 values (↓) indicate better performance. The top result is marked with asterisk (*). BraTS, brain tumor segmentation; DSC, Dice similarity coefficient; ET, enhancing tumor; HD95, Hausdorff distance at the 95th percentile; TC, tumor core; WT, whole tumor.