Skip to main content
. 2026 Jun 29;16:26943. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-59234-y

Table 2.

Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods on TN3K dataset.

Methods Dice (%) IoU (%) Precision (%) Recall (%)
U-Net 81.5 ± 0.5 68.8 ± 0.6 82.1 ± 0.7 80.9 ± 0.6
U-Net +  +  82.8 ± 0.6 70.7 ± 0.5 83.5 ± 0.5 82.2 ± 0.7
Attention U-Net 83.7 ± 0.4 72.0 ± 0.6 84.8 ± 0.6 82.7 ± 0.5
TransUNet 83.4 ± 0.7 71.5 ± 0.8 87.8 ± 0.5 79.8 ± 0.9
Swin-UNet 85.3 ± 0.5 74.4 ± 0.4 86.2 ± 0.6 84.5 ± 0.5
UNeXt 83.2 ± 0.6 71.2 ± 0.7 84.1 ± 0.6 82.4 ± 0.7
UNETR +  +  84.9 ± 0.6 73.8 ± 0.5 86.7 ± 0.5 83.4 ± 0.6
MedNeXt 86.1 ± 0.4 75.7 ± 0.5 86.9 ± 0.5 85.4 ± 0.4
USEANet 86.2 ± 0.5 75.9 ± 0.5 86.9 ± 0.6 85.7 ± 0.5
Wave-GMS 86.4 ± 0.4 76.2 ± 0.5 87.0 ± 0.5 85.9 ± 0.5
CEA-Net (Ours) 86.9 ± 0.4 77.0 ± 0.5 87.5 ± 0.6 86.4 ± 0.4

Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation over five-fold cross-validation.