TABLE 2.
Segmentation performances (median values with IQR) of the single‐view approaches and multi‐view approaches
| Metrics | Axial (A) | Coronal (C) | Sagittal (S) | A + C | A + C + S | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A + C vs. A | A + C vs. C | A + C vs. A + C + S | ||||||
| VS (%) |
94.4 [90.1, 96.7] |
94.7 [90.4, 97.3] |
79.1 [73.5, 86.4] |
93.3 [89.6, 96.9] |
92.9 [89.6, 96.5] |
.636 | .008 | .231 |
| HD95↓ (mm) |
1.73 [1.41, 2.24] |
1.41 [1.41, 2.0] |
3.21 [2.24, 3.61] |
1.41 [1.41, 1.79] |
1.73 [1.41, 1.84] |
<.001 | <.001 | .035 |
| DSC (%) |
69.7 [66.0, 72.4] |
70.0 [67.2, 73.2] |
55.2 [45.7, 63.1] |
71.8 [68.7, 74.6] |
71.0 [68.5, 74.3] |
<.001 | <.001 | .021 |
Note: Values in bold denote statistical significance. The combination of axial and coronal views shows its superiority over individual views. Note that we used equal weights for each view in the multi‐view ensemble model.
Abbreviations: A, axial; C, coronal; DSC, dice similarity coefficient; HD95, 95th percentile of Hausdorff distance; S, sagittal; VS, volumetric similarity.