TABLE I.
Quantitative comparison for instrument segmentation across several techniques. Mean and (standard deviation) values are reported for IoU(%) and DICE coefficient(%) from all networks against our proposed U-NetPlus. The statistical significance of the results for U-Net + NN and U=NetPlus model compared against the baseline model (U-Net and TernasuNet) are represented by * and ** for p-values 0.1 and 0.05, respectively. U-Net has been compared with U-Net+NN, TernausNet has been compared with U-NetPlus. The best performance metric (IoU and DICE) in each category (Binary, Instrument Part and Instrument Type Segmentation) is indicated in bold text.
| Network | Binary Segmentation | Instrument Part | Instrument Type | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | IoU | DICE | IoU | DICE | IoU | DICE |
| ToolNetH [6] | 74.4 | 82.2 | - | - | - | - |
| ToolNetMS [6] | 72.5 | 80.4 | - | - | - | - |
| FCN-8s [6] | 70.9 | 78.8 | - | - | - | - |
| CSL [13] | - | 88.9 | - | 87.70 (Shaft) | - | - |
| U-Net [20] | 75.44 (18.18) | 84.37 (14.58) | 48.41 (17.59) | 60.75 (18.21) | 15.80 (15.06) | 23.59 (19.87) |
| U-Net + NN | 77.05** (15.71) | 85.26* (13.08) | 49.39* (15.18) | 61.98* (15.47) | 16.72* (13.45) | 23.97 (18.08) |
| TernausNet [24] | 83.60 (15.83) | 90.01 (12.50) | 65.50 (17.22) | 75.97 (16.21) | 33.78 (19.16) | 44.95 (22.89) |
| U-NetPlus-VGG-11 | 81.32 (16.76) | 88.27 (13.52) | 62.51 (18.87) | 74.57 (16.51) | 34.84* (14.26) | 46.07** (16.16) |
| U-NetPlus-VGG-16 | 83.75 (13.36) | 90.20* (11.77) | 65.75 (14.74) |
76.26* (13.54) 94.75(Shaft) |
34.19 (15.06) | 45.32 (17.86) |