Table 2 Comparison of the proposed method to evaluated baselines in terms of AUC ROC and AP on the Location dataset for all markers on the entire slice and in the different ETDRS rings.
From: Predicting OCT biological marker localization from weak annotations
1 mm | 3 mm | 6 mm | Present | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IRF | SRF | IRF | SRF | IRF | SRF | IRF | SRF | ||
Occ. (%) | 13.0 | 2.1 | 31.9 | 1.2 | 38.4 | 0.4 | 51.5 | 2.8 | |
AUC | Masking | 92.6 | 91.7 | 89.6 | 81.6 | 92.7 | 66.7 | 96.5 | 96.2 |
PartConvs | 93.2 | 94.1 | 90.2 | 89.8 | 91.7 | 74.9 | 94.2 | 89.7 | |
Grad-CAM | 85.2 | 87.3 | 89.2 | 76.0 | 89.4 | 64.6 | 96.5 | 96.2 | |
MS-CAM12 | 55.7 | 70.4 | 57.5 | 64.1 | 55.0 | 56.0 | 56.0 | 53.7 | |
Ours | 90.6 | 97.5 | 92.7 | 93.8 | 94.1 | 95.1 | 97.2 | 97.7 | |
AP | Masking | 76.9 | 48.3 | 84.2 | 17.2 | 88.5 | 5.6 | 96.1 | 72.3 |
PartConvs | 81.8 | 60.5 | 85.2 | 21.4 | 88.1 | 8.2 | 94.2 | 38.5 | |
Grad-CAM | 88.2 | 68.4 | 86.9 | 25.4 | 78.7 | 7.4 | 96.1 | 72.3 | |
MS-CAM12 | 70.3 | 38.5 | 64.1 | 14.4 | 54.3 | 1.6 | 55.6 | 3.1 | |
Ours | 92.1 | 86.6 | 93.7 | 52.7 | 88.3 | 19.1 | 96.8 | 77.9 | |
