Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr;12(4):2397–2415. doi: 10.21037/qims-21-919

Table 2. Comparison of single-prediction on BraTS 2018 dataset.

Method Dice (%) ↑ Hausdorff 95% (mm) ↓
Avg ET WT TC Avg ET WT TC
3D U-Net 78.49 74.36±4.8 88.34±1.8 72.79±4.2 11.35 5.98±1.9 15.62±2.4 12.47±2.6
V-Net 80.59 78.84±4.9 88.42±1.9 74.51±4.3 10.29 6.34±2.0 13.59±2.5 10.95±2.4
UNETR 83.85 79.46±4.6 89.16±2.3 82.93±4.1 5.92 4.76±1.9 6.34±2.1 6.67±2.1
DMFNet 84.76 80.09±3.9 89.86±1.5 84.35±4.1 4.74 3.14±1.1 4.61±1.4 6.46±2.0
TransBTS 85.36 81.09±4.1 90.82±1.8 84.16±3.8 5.41 4.06±1.1 5.79±1.9 6.37±2.0
Ours 86.32 81.73±4.1 91.57±1.8 85.68±3.3 4.23 3.27±1.0 3.74±1.3 5.68±1.4

Data with 95% confidence interval in Dice and Hausdorff. ↑ indicates that the higher the value is, the better the result is. ↓ indicates that the lower the value is, the better the result is. Avg, average; ET, enhancing tumor; WT, whole tumor; TC, tumor core.