Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 11.
Published in final edited form as: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2019 Mar 8;10951:109512I. doi: 10.1117/12.2512282

Table IV.

Comparison of the proposed segmentation method to previous work where applicable. Mean ± standard deviation of the segmentation error metrics for the whole prostate gland.

Method Year Semiautomatic / Automatic No. test images DSC (%) MAD (mm) HDist (mm) ΔV (cm3) ΔV (%) Execution Time (min)
Proposed algorithm 2018 Semiautomatic 14 86 ± 3 1.4 ± 0.4 8.5 ± 2.0 −3.7 ± 3.1 −17 ± 11 0.5 ± 0.15
Jia et al. [9] 2017 Automatic - 91 ± 4 1.6 ± 0.4 4.6 ± 1.8 - - ~40
Tian et al. [16] 2017 Semiautomatic 43 87 ± 2 2.1 ± 0.4 9.9 ± 1.8 - −5 ± 8 0.67
Cheng at al. [7] 2017 Automatic 250 90 ± 3 - 13.5 ± 7.9 - - 0.05
Shahedi et al. [12] 2017 Automatic 42 71 ± 11 3.2 ± 1.2 - −3.6 ± 10.4 −8 ± 20 0.28 ± 0.07
Tian et al. [15] 2016 Semiautomatic 43 89 ± 2 1.7 ± 0.4 8.7 ± 2.7 - 1 ± 8 0.58
Korsager et al. [10] 2015 Semiautomatic 67 88 1.5 - - 12 > 1
Tian et al. [14] 2015 Automatic 12 83 ± 4 - 9.3 ± 2.6 - - 4
Mahapatra and Buhmann [11] 2014 Automatic 30 81 ± 5 - 5.9 ± 2.1 - - 20 to 25
Shahedi et al. [13] 2014 Semiautomatic 42 82 ± 4 2.0 ± 0.5 - −4.6 ± 7.2 −12 ± 14 1.88
Liao et al. [33] 2013 Automatic 66 88 ± 3 1.8 ± 0.9 7.7 ± 2.1 - - 2.9
Toth et al. [34] 2012 Semiautomatic 108 88 ± 5 1.5 ± 0.8 - - - 2.57