Table 4.

Comparisons for the DSC of LIB segmentations using different methods

Methods	Improved U‐Net	Traditional U‐Net	3D SFLS method	CNN using sliding windows	Jodas's method
DSC (%)	92.84 ± 4.46	89.50 ± 4.91	90.64 ± 4.97	86.30 ± 6.71	85.50 ± 7.22
Adjusted P‐valuea	–	0.007	0.033	0.0003	0.0004

3D, three‐dimensional; CNN, convolutional neural network; DSC, dice similarity coefficients; LIB, lumen‐intima boundary; SFLS, sparse field level‐set.

^aThe original P‐values were multiplied by the appropriate factors (4, 3, 2, 1) to give the adjusted P‐values, which were compared to a P‐value of 0.05.