Table 2 |
||||||
|
Quantitative comparison between the proposed approach and alternative methods from the literature. |
||||||
|
image quality |
number of images |
RMSd |
CCC |
PE (%) |
ES (%) |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Proposed method |
high |
20 |
2.14 ± 0.367 |
0.985 ± 0.011 |
2.49 ± 2.46 |
9.62 ± 7.9 |
|
average |
23 |
2.53 ± 0.398 |
0.901 ± 0.024 |
7.56 ± 2.51 |
16.20 ± 8.23 |
|
|
low |
17 |
2.99 ± 0.695 |
0.734 ± 0.101 |
15.10 ± 7.98 |
18.59 ± 7.02 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Klingler Jr et al. [2] |
acceptablea |
121b |
0.93 |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Choy and Jin [3] |
high |
10 |
1.7 ± 0.7 |
|||
|
average |
8 |
3.5 ± 1.0 |
||||
|
|
||||||
|
Lacerda et al. [8] |
high |
7 |
10.65 ± 2.47 |
18.51 ± 5.06 |
||
|
average |
5 |
18.06 ± 7.49 |
24.62 ± 7.89 |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Amorim et al. [10] |
high |
8 |
0.917 |
10.79 ± 2.95 |
||
|
|
||||||
|
a canine models; b composite images, each obtained by averaging over ten cardiac cycles. The mean (± standard deviation) results from each evaluation metric are shown for different image segmentation methods and different degrees of image quality. |
||||||
|
Melo et al. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2010 9:5 doi:10.1186/1475-925X-9-5 |
||||||
