Table 2 Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for all model configurations. Symbol ↑ indicates that higher values are better. The best values from each measurement are written in bold and and second-best values are underlined. As can be appreciated, in this evaluation, the PUNet-wSL models performed better in segmenting changing WMH (i.e., the combination of ‘Shrinking’ and ‘Growing’ WMH) than the original U-Net, which performed better on segmenting ‘Stable’ WMH. PUNet-wSL-vol had an overall better performance in estimating the future volume of WMH, as per Table 1.
Model’s name | Shrinking | Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) ↑ | Stroke lesions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Growing | Stable | Average | Changing | |||
UNet43 | 0.2228 | 0.2077 | 0.6609 | 0.3638 | 0.3644 | – |
UNet-vol | 0.2239 | 0.2155 | 0.6485 | 0.3626 | 0.3649 | – |
UNet-wSL | 0.2093 | 0.2026 | 0.6420 | 0.3513 | 0.3499 | 0.3588 |
UNet-wSL-vol | 0.2125 | 0.2189 | 0.6452 | 0.3589 | 0.3579 | 0.3422 |
PUNet26 | 0.2132 | 0.2137 | 0.6385 | 0.3551 | 0.3633 | – |
PUNet-vol | 0.2107 | 0.2232 | 0.6439 | 0.3593 | 0.3642 | – |
PUNet-wSL | 0.2217 | 0.2130 | 0.6437 | 0.3595 | 0.3719 | 0.4499 |
PUNet-wSL-vol | 0.2290 | 0.2112 | 0.6392 | 0.3598 | 0.3681 | 0.4281 |
Att-PUNet | 0.2211 | 0.1796 | 0.6302 | 0.3437 | 0.3510 | – |
Att-PUNet-vol | 0.2078 | 0.1981 | 0.6315 | 0.3458 | 0.3471 | – |
Att-PUNet-wSL | 0.1968 | 0.2045 | 0.6240 | 0.3417 | 0.3543 | 0.5338 |
Att-PUNet-wSL-vol | 0.1960 | 0.2077 | 0.6322 | 0.3453 | 0.3536 | 0.5430 |