Table 3.

Comparison of average nucleus segmentation performance of RGVF snake (Li et al., 2012), multi-scale watershed (Gençtav et al., 2012), FCM (Chankong et al., 2014), and our graph-search based methods on the normal cervical cells from the Herlev data (Jantzen et al., 2005). Our method^*: remove outliers (23 squamous cells in which nuclei cannot be properly extracted by initial segmentation).

Methods	Superficial squamous (74 cells)		Intermediate squamous (70 cells)		Columnar (98 cells)
	Precision	Recall	Precision	Recall	Precision	Recall
Li et al. (2012)	0.92 ± 0.12	0.88 ± 0.14	0.95 ± 0.03	0.92 ± 0.06	0.83 ± 0.16	0.76 ± 0.20
Gençtav et al. (2012)	0.69 ± 0.37	0.63 ± 0.37	0.79 ± 0.29	0.73 ± 0.31	0.85 ± 0.15	0.77 ± 0.18
Chankong et al. (2014)	0.95 ± 0.12	0.75 ± 0.33	0.98 ± 0.03	0.82 ± 0.25	0.88 ± 0.20	0.78 ± 0.25
Our method	0.75 ± 0.34	0.98 ± 0.08	0.81 ± 0.29	0.99 ± 0.02	0.86 ± 0.16	0.93 ± 0.11
Our method*	0.90±0.10	0.98±0.03	0.93±0.06	0.99±0.02	0.86±0.16	0.93±0.11