Table 1.

State-of-the-art methods for left-ventricular segmentation shown at end-diastole (ED) and end-systole (ES) on the ACDC test set compared to proposed approach.

Left-ventricle label		Dice similarity coefficient		Hausdorff distance		Ejection fraction			End-diastolic volume
		ED	ES	ED	ES	Corr.	bias ± std		Corr.	bias ± std
		val.	val.	mm	mm	val.	%	%	val.	mL	mL
*	CarSON	0.967	0.929	5.656	7.676	0.990	0.252	3.183	0.996	0.762	6.672
1	Dong et al. (17)	0.967	0.928	6.366	7.573	0.993	−0.360	2.689	0.998	2.032	4.611
2	Simantiris and Tziritas (18)	0.967	0.928	5.476	6.921	0.991	0.490	2.965	0.997	1.530	5.736
3	Isensee et al. (19)	0.964	0.912	6.180	8.386	0.990	−0.476	3.114	0.997	3.746	5.146
Myocardium label		Dice similarity coefficient		Hausdorff distance		Left-ventricular mass			End-systolic volume
		ED	ES	ED	ES	Corr.	bias ± std		Corr.	bias ± std
		val.	val.	mm	mm	val.	g	g	val.	mL	mL
*	CarSON	0.898	0.913	8.128	9.189	0.981	1.405	10.32	0.985	1.152	9.391
1	Dong et al. (17)	0.904	0.923	7.014	7.328	0.987	−2.547	8.28	0.988	−1.984	8.335
2	Simantiris and Tziritas (18)	0.891	0.904	8.264	9.575	0.992	−2.904	6.46	0.983	−2.134	10.11
3	Zotti et al. (20)	0.873	0.895	8.197	8.318	0.989	−2.1	7.91	0.988	−1.79	8.575

Red are the best results for each metric.

^*Proposed segmentation method.