Table 4

Comparison of localization results
Dataset 1
R P A Dice NSD HD
RPL 0.975 0.940 0.916 0.958 0.017 10.01
OT 0.928 0.807 0.767 0.876 0.068 17.52
KM 0.758 0.657 0.626 0.727 0.237 19.11
WS 0.974 0.915 0.893 0.945 0.022 11.21
LS 0.970 0.910 0.886 0.932 0.022 9.58
Dataset 2
R P A Dice NSD HD
RPL 0.886 0.955 0.852 0.906 0.090 14.10
OT 0.598 0.750 0.530 0.601 0.419 36.72
KM 0.508 0.601 0.437 0.521 0.503 134.5
WS 0.714 0.817 0.636 0.789 0.337 47.67
LS 0.832 0.899 0.767 0.804 0.207 24.96
Dataset 3
R P A Dice NSD HD
RPL 0.957 0.975 0.934 0.924 0.052 5.51
OT 0.712 0.961 0.685 0.873 0.188 31.80
KM 0.722 0.824 0.604 0.872 0.189 38.12
WS 0.584 0.989 0.575 0.819 0.335 34.53
LS 0.914 0.939 0.865 0.897 0.094 7.35

Comparison between our proposed region-based progressive localization method (RPL), Otsu thresholding (OT), k-means clustering (KM), watershed (WS) and level set [52] (LS).

Song et al.

Song et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2013 14:173   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-173

Open Data