Table 4.

Comparing Dice score evaluation of the proposed framework with the state-of-the-art methods for HGG in BRATS 2015, BRATS 2017 and BRATS 2019

	Approach	WT	TC	ET
BRATS 2015	Bakas et al. [11]	0.82	0.59	0.74
	Barzegar et al. [23]	0.907	0.853	0.884
	Barzegar et al. [24]	0.89	0.88	0.87
	Barzegar et al. [28]	0.92	0.894	0.902
	Isensee et al. [29]	0.85	0.74	0.64
	Hussain et al. [30]	0.87	0.89	0.92
	our method	0.9234	0.9038	0.9212
BRATS 2017	Isensee et al. [29]	0.895	0.828	0.707
	Barzegar et al. [23]	0.883	0.701	0.748
	Barzegar et al. [28]	0.900	0.872	0.886
	Hussain et al. [30]	0.86	0.87	0.9
	Kamnitsas et al. [31]	0.902	0.82	0.757
	Choudhury et al. [32]	0.905	0.801	0.815
	Guo et al. [33]	0.97	0.77	0.72
	Phophilia et al. [34]	0.64	0.49	0.47
	Bharath et al. [35]	0.833	0.783	0.761
	Lefkovits et al. [36]	0.873	0.689	0.719
	our method	0.9454	0.9132	0.9362
BRATS 2019	Wang et al. [37]	0.83	0.888	0.916
	Barzegar et al. [28]	0.901	0.887	0.89
	Barzegar et al. [23]	0.878	0.808	0.835
	Rafi et al. [38]	0.84	0.8	0.63
	Serranoet al. [12]	0.839	0.733	0.594
	Hamghalam et al. [39]	0.7965	0.8965	0.7901
	our method	0.9482	0.9248	0.9386