Table 7. Performance of different conditional embedding methods on the BraTS 2020 dataset.
| Methods | WT | TC | ET | Average | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | DSC↑ | HD95↓ (mm) | ||||
| Conditional fusion | 0.912 | 3.190 | 0.840 | 5.611 | 0.780 | 4.014 | 0.844 | 4.272 | |||
| Feature encoder | 0.915* | 1.866* | 0.847 | 3.018 | 0.783* | 2.800* | 0.848 | 2.561 | |||
| Conditional embedding | 0.910 | 2.040 | 0.850 | 2.816 | 0.780 | 2.772 | 0.847 | 2.543 | |||
| FCFDiff-Net | 0.914 | 1.910 | 0.854* | 2.727* | 0.782 | 2.912 | 0.850* | 2.516* | |||
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; FCFDiff-Net, full-conditional feature diffusion embedded network; HD95, Hausdorff distance at the 95th percentile; TC, tumor core; WT, whole tumor.