Table 5. Ablation study of FCFE and MHARF on the BraTS 2020 dataset.
| Methods | WT | TC | ET | Average | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | ||||
| Basic | 0.915 | 1.866 | 0.847 | 3.018 | 0.783 | 2.800 | 0.848 | 2.561 | |||
| Basic + FCFE | 0.914 | 1.910 | 0.854 | 2.727 | 0.782 | 2.912 | 0.850 | 2.516 | |||
| Basic + MHARF | 0.915 | 1.883 | 0.848 | 2.961 | 0.784 | 2.756 | 0.849 | 2.533 | |||
| FCFDiff-Net | 0.916* | 1.917 | 0.860* | 2.571* | 0.786* | 2.581* | 0.854* | 2.356* | |||
Higher DSC scores (↑) indicate better segmentation, whereas lower HD95 values (↓) indicate better performance. The top result is marked with asterisk (*). BraTS, brain tumor segmentation; DSC, Dice similarity coefficient; ET, enhancing tumor; FCFE, full-conditional feature embedding; HD95, Hausdorff distance at the 95th percentile; MHARF, multi-head attention residual fusion; TC, tumor core; WT, whole tumor.