TABLE III.

Performance evaluation of the baseline MAS (bMAS) method vs. the proposed CMACS framework.

Metrics	Methods	LV	LA	LVM	LAA	RA	RV	AA	WH
Dice	bMAS	0.93 [0.81,0.92]	0.90 [0.86,0.93]	0.80 [0.66,0.85]	0.63 [0.48,0.74]	0.89 [0.83,0.92]	0.89 [0.81,0.92]	0.88 [0.81,0.92]	0.93 [0.91,94]
	CMACS	0.95† [0.94,0.96]	0.95† [0.93,0.97]	0.88† [0.84,0.91]	0.79† [0.67,0.85]	0.92† [0.85,0.94]	0.91† [0.87,0.94]	0.94† [0.92,0.96]	0.96† [0.94,0.97]
HD (mm)	bMAS	6.56 [4.50,9.26]	8.31 [5.72,11.6]	7.84 [5.68,13.0]	11.1 [6.75,16.8]	9.08 [6.46,15.7]	12.2 [7.40,19.3]	5.83 [4.18,9.94]	37.6 [33.1,44.0]
	CMACS	5.56 [3.61,9.63]	7.18 [4.82,13.5]	6.44† [3.94,10.1]	8.28† [5.28,14.8]	8.54 [4.84,13.2]	12.1 [6.26,19.5]	4.58† [2.81,8.05]	13.0† [11.5,18.6]
MSD (mm)	bMAS	1.07 [0.82,1.72]	1.30 [1.02,1.74]	1.21 [0.95,1.71]	2.09 [1.41,3.11]	1.46 [1.12,2.24]	1.75 [1.25,2.89]	1.18 [0.82,1.80]	2.92 [2.53,3.79]
	CMACS	0.86† [0.70,1.12]	0.76† [0.52,1.09]	0.85† [0.71,1.03]	1.31† [0.93,2.09]	1.32 [0.99,2.16]	1.55† [1.11,2.16]	0.71† [0.48,0.91]	1.46† [1.11,1.84]

Quantitative Dice index, 3D Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean surface distance (MSD) are calculated between the automatic and manual segmentation. Results are expressed as the median and 95 % confidence interval.

^†indicates significantly better performance in a higher Dice, a lower HD, or a lower MSD (p<0.05).