Table 2.
Quantitative segmentation results of the lung regions on CT slices. The performance is reported as Dice (%), B-Acc (%) and MAE (%). 95% confidence intervals are presented in brackets. We performed experiments with classic segmentation methods such as U-Net (Ronneberger et al., 2015), U-Net++ (Zhou et al., 2019), and cutting-edge methods such as PraNet (Fan et al., 2020a), RBA-Net (Meng et al., 2020a), CABNet (Meng et al., 2020b), GRB-GCN (Meng et al., 2021c) and BI-Gconv (Meng et al., 2021a). Notably, we sampled 120 vertices for CABNet (Meng et al., 2020b) and RBA-Net (Meng et al., 2020a) to construct a smooth boundary.
Methods | Metrics |
||
---|---|---|---|
Dice (%)↑ | B-Acc (%)↑ | MAE (%)↓ | |
U-Net | 95.7 (93.2, 97.6) |
96.9 (95.0, 98.4) |
1.49 (1.12, 1.68) |
textitU-Net++ | 94.1 (92.2, 96.0) |
95.0 (93.2, 97.5) |
1.98 (1.56, 2.23) |
PraNet | 95.2 (94.0, 96.6) |
96.0 (95.1, 98.0) |
1.55 (1.38, 1.68) |
RBA-Net | 96.2 (95.2, 98.0) |
96.8 (95.9, 98.0) |
1.45 (1.29, 1.56) |
CABNet | 95.4 (93.8, 96.7) |
96.4 (94.7, 98.1) |
1.60 (1.42, 1.78) |
GRB-GCN |
96.6 (94.9, 97.9) |
96.7 (95.8, 97.9) |
1.50 (1.32, 1.68) |
BI-GConv | 96.3 (94.8, 98.0) |
96.5 (94.7, 98.2) |
1.52 (1.34, 1.69) |