Table 1.
Quantitative comparison of N = 26 canine 4D echocardiographic data sets to expert manual segmentation of Rayleigh, DAM, and SSDM approachesa
| Approach | Dice (%) | PTP (%) | MAD (mm) | HD (mm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endocardial | Rayleigh | 74.9 ± 18.8 | 83.1 ± 16.3 | 2.01 ± 1.22 | 9.17 ± 3.37 |
| DAM | 93.6 ± 2.49 | 94.9 ± 2.34 | 0.57 ± 0.14 | 2.95 ± 0.62 | |
| SSDMb | 95.9 ± 1.24 | 1.41 ± 0.40 | 2.53 ± 0.75 | ||
| Epicardial | Rayleigh | 74.1 ± 17.4 | 82.5 ± 12.0 | 2.80 ± 1.55 | 16.9 ± 9.30 |
| DAM | 97.1 ± 0.93 | 97.6 ± 0.86 | 0.60 ± 0.19 | 3.03 ± 0.76 | |
| SSDMb | 94.5 ± 1.74 | 1.74 ± 0.39 | 2.79 ± 0.97 |
a
Mean ± standard deviation of voxel overlap (Dice), percentage of true positive voxels (PTP), mean absolute difference (MAD), and Hausdorff distance (HD).
b
Methodology utilizing sparsity.
Abbreviations: DAM, dynamical appearance model; SSDM, subject-specific dynamical shape model; 4D, four-dimensional.
Table adapted from Reference 6 with permission from Elsevier.