Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Comput Biol Med. 2020 Sep 30;125:104019. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104019

Table VI.

Performance comparison of the proposed CMACS framework and other published methods based on the MMWHS CTA test dataset. Quantitative Dice coefficient, 3D Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean surface distance (MSD) measurements of 10 automated CTA segmentation methods reported in the MMWHS challenge [2] versus our results. The 10 methods in MMWHS challenges are: GUT, KTH, CUHK1, CUHK2, UCF, SEU, SIAT, UT, UB1, and UOE.

Methods Dice MD HD
GUT 0.91 ± 0.09 1.12 ± 0.25 25.2 ± 10.8
KTH 0.89 ± 0.03 1.39 ± 0.52 31.2 ± 13.2
CUHK1 0.89 ± 0.05 1.43 ± 0.59 29.0 ± 15.8
CUHK2 0.89 ± 0.05 1.68 ± 0.59 42.0 ± 16.3
UCF 0.88 ± 0.08 1.54 ± 1.01 28.5 ± 11.4
SEU 0.88 ± 0.02 1.71 ± 0.40 34.1 ± 12.5
SIAT 0.85 ± 0.06 1.93 ± 0.92 44.9 ± 16.1
UT 0.84 ± 0.15 4.81 ± 13.6 34.6 ± 12.4
UB1 0.89 ± 0.03 1.44 ± 0.30 55.4 ± 10.9
UOE 0.81 ± 0.16 4.20 ± 7.78 51.9 ± 17.5
CMACS1 0.86 ± 0.04 1.66 ± 0.88 10.2 ± 4.86
CMACS2 0.84 ± 0.04 1.82 ± 1.00 11.4 ± 5.36
1

CMACS: our results based on the MMWHS atlas.

2

CMACS: our results based on the NHLBI atlas. All results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.