222
K. K. Vupparaboina et al.
Evaluation
criteria
Method
Parameter
Unit
Dataset-1
Dataset-2
Dataset-3
Overall
(SSIM-based
method)
Dual-gradient-based
method [19]
Performance improvement
of SSIM-based method over
dual-gradient-based method
Bias or
Difference
(D)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MD (SDD)
µm (µm) -12.62 (19.38) -22.79 (20.85) -14.48 (19.10) -16.63 (19.79)
2.35 (15.48)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
-52.98–13.75 -45.17–1.64 -32.06–10.22 -52.98–13.75
–
–
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MD (SDD)
µm (µm) -2.18 (15.20) -6.60 (14.38) -8.17 (13.97) -5.65 (14.53)
-1.34 (6.08)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
-21.36–15.25 -30.67–20.18 -38.71–15.26 -30.67–20.18
–
–
Absolute
difference
(AD)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MAD (SDAD)
µm (µm) 19.61 (16.39) 26.45 (18.38) 19.59 (17.46) 21.88 (17.43)
16.27 (11.48)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
6.15–52.98
5.63–45.17
9.98–32.06
5.63–52.98
–
–
CVAD
ratio
0.84
0.69
0.89
0.79
0.71
NC
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MAD (SDAD)
µm (µm) 12.63 (12.62) 14.09 (11.76) 14.50 (10.56) 13.74 (11.67)
8.01 (3.34)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
5.71–22.4
5.55–30.67
6.20–38.71
5.55–38.71
–
–
CVAD
ratio
0.99
0.83
0.73
0.85
0.42
NC
Quotients
QMAD
ratio
1.55
1.87
1.35
1.59
2.03
27.67%
QCVAD
ratio
0.84
0.83
1.22
0.93
1.69
81.72%
Correlation
coefficient
(CC)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MCC (SDCC) % (%) 99.71 (0.20) 99.56 (0.28) 99.35 (0.42) 99.54 (0.31)
–
–
Min–Max
(%)
98.84–99.95 98.48–99.95 97.90–99.88 97.90–99.95
–
–
CVCC
ratio
0.20
0.28
0.42
0.31
–
–
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MCC (SDCC) % (%) 99.85 (0.09) 99.81 (0.13) 99.65 (0.24) 99.77 (0.16)
–
–
Min–Max
%
99.57–99.97 99.20–99.96 98.18–99.92 98.18–99.97
–
–
CVCC
ratio
0.09
0.13
0.24
0.16
–
–
Quotients
QMCC
ratio
1.93
2.31
1.85
2.00
–
–
QCVCC
ratio
2.22
2.15
1.96
1.94
–
–
Dice
coefficient
(DC)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MDC (SDDC) % (%) 95.87 (1.97) 93.94 (1.55) 94.16 (1.47) 94.65 (1.67)
96.7 (2.1)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
%
88.81–98.73 89.79–98.44 90.42–96.94 88.81–98.73
–
–
CVDC
ratio
2.05
1.65
1.56
1.76
2.17
NC
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MDC (SDDC) % (%) 97.43 (0.82) 96.90 (1.30) 95.87 (1.50) 96.73 (1.24)
–
–
Min–Max
%
95.00–98.78 93.00–98.75 89.44–98.38 89.44–98.78
–
–
CVDC
ratio
0.84
1.34
1.56
1.28
–
–
Quotients
QMDC
ratio
1.60
1.95
1.41
1.63
–
–
QCVDC
ratio
2.44
1.23
0.99
1.37
–
–
Fig. 9.7
Statistical analysis: Automated versus manual methods. Notation: M1—Manual segmentation-1, M2—Manual segmentation-2, M—Average of M1
and M2, NC—Not comparable
K. K. Vupparaboina et al.
Evaluation
criteria
Method
Parameter
Unit
Dataset-1
Dataset-2
Dataset-3
Overall
(SSIM-based
method)
Dual-gradient-based
method [19]
Performance improvement
of SSIM-based method over
dual-gradient-based method
Bias or
Difference
(D)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MD (SDD)
µm (µm) -12.62 (19.38) -22.79 (20.85) -14.48 (19.10) -16.63 (19.79)
2.35 (15.48)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
-52.98–13.75 -45.17–1.64 -32.06–10.22 -52.98–13.75
–
–
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MD (SDD)
µm (µm) -2.18 (15.20) -6.60 (14.38) -8.17 (13.97) -5.65 (14.53)
-1.34 (6.08)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
-21.36–15.25 -30.67–20.18 -38.71–15.26 -30.67–20.18
–
–
Absolute
difference
(AD)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MAD (SDAD)
µm (µm) 19.61 (16.39) 26.45 (18.38) 19.59 (17.46) 21.88 (17.43)
16.27 (11.48)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
6.15–52.98
5.63–45.17
9.98–32.06
5.63–52.98
–
–
CVAD
ratio
0.84
0.69
0.89
0.79
0.71
NC
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MAD (SDAD)
µm (µm) 12.63 (12.62) 14.09 (11.76) 14.50 (10.56) 13.74 (11.67)
8.01 (3.34)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
µm
5.71–22.4
5.55–30.67
6.20–38.71
5.55–38.71
–
–
CVAD
ratio
0.99
0.83
0.73
0.85
0.42
NC
Quotients
QMAD
ratio
1.55
1.87
1.35
1.59
2.03
27.67%
QCVAD
ratio
0.84
0.83
1.22
0.93
1.69
81.72%
Correlation
coefficient
(CC)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MCC (SDCC) % (%) 99.71 (0.20) 99.56 (0.28) 99.35 (0.42) 99.54 (0.31)
–
–
Min–Max
(%)
98.84–99.95 98.48–99.95 97.90–99.88 97.90–99.95
–
–
CVCC
ratio
0.20
0.28
0.42
0.31
–
–
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MCC (SDCC) % (%) 99.85 (0.09) 99.81 (0.13) 99.65 (0.24) 99.77 (0.16)
–
–
Min–Max
%
99.57–99.97 99.20–99.96 98.18–99.92 98.18–99.97
–
–
CVCC
ratio
0.09
0.13
0.24
0.16
–
–
Quotients
QMCC
ratio
1.93
2.31
1.85
2.00
–
–
QCVCC
ratio
2.22
2.15
1.96
1.94
–
–
Dice
coefficient
(DC)
Automated
(Proposed vs M)
MDC (SDDC) % (%) 95.87 (1.97) 93.94 (1.55) 94.16 (1.47) 94.65 (1.67)
96.7 (2.1)
NC (NC)
Min–Max
%
88.81–98.73 89.79–98.44 90.42–96.94 88.81–98.73
–
–
CVDC
ratio
2.05
1.65
1.56
1.76
2.17
NC
Manual
(M1 vs M2)
MDC (SDDC) % (%) 97.43 (0.82) 96.90 (1.30) 95.87 (1.50) 96.73 (1.24)
–
–
Min–Max
%
95.00–98.78 93.00–98.75 89.44–98.38 89.44–98.78
–
–
CVDC
ratio
0.84
1.34
1.56
1.28
–
–
Quotients
QMDC
ratio
1.60
1.95
1.41
1.63
–
–
QCVDC
ratio
2.44
1.23
0.99
1.37
–
–
Fig. 9.7
Statistical analysis: Automated versus manual methods. Notation: M1—Manual segmentation-1, M2—Manual segmentation-2, M—Average of M1
and M2, NC—Not comparable