©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 7, 2025; 31(41): 111184
Published online Nov 7, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i41.111184
Published online Nov 7, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i41.111184
Table 9 Performance comparison of different models evaluated on the self-collected dataset and through cross-validation on the test split of the EDD2020 dataset, mean ± SD
| Model | Self-collected dataset | Cross validation on EDD2020 dataset | GRR (%) | ||||
| Pixel accuracy (%) | IoU (%) | Dice score (%) | Pixel accuracy (%) | IoU (%) | Dice score (%) | ||
| CNN-based | |||||||
| U-Net | 89.22 ± 0.16 | 82.14 ± 0.21 | 88.47 ± 0.17 | 67.77 ± 1.17 | 53.72 ± 1.28 | 67.77 ± 1.17 | 65.41 |
| ResNet + U-net | 92.20 ± 0.14 | 87.30 ± 0.30 | 91.95 ± 0.19 | 71.62 ± 1.09 | 58.52 ± 1.49 | 71.62 ± 1.09 | 67.03 |
| ConvNeXt + UPerNet | 93.05 ± 0.14 | 88.48 ± 0.09 | 92.76 ± 0.10 | 73.60 ± 0.42 | 60.87 ± 0.72 | 73.60 ± 0.42 | 68.79 |
| M2SNet | 92.17 ± 0.17 | 86.93 ± 0.32 | 91.72 ± 0.26 | 71.98 ± 0.24 | 58.80 ± 0.23 | 71.98 ± 0.24 | 67.64 |
| Dilated SegNet | 92.43 ± 0.35 | 87.47 ± 0.51 | 92.04 ± 0.32 | 72.26 ± 0.38 | 59.54 ± 0.52 | 72.26 ± 0.38 | 68.08 |
| PraNet | 92.38 ± 0.29 | 86.35 ± 0.43 | 91.31 ± 0.31 | 70.17 ± 1.45 | 56.81 ± 1.82 | 70.17 ± 1.45 | 65.79 |
| Transformer-based | |||||||
| SwinV2 + UPerNet | 93.15 ± 0.11 | 88.50 ± 0.18 | 92.84 ± 0.12 | 72.96 ± 0.71 | 60.29 ± 0.62 | 72.96 ± 0.71 | 68.12 |
| SegFormer | 93.39 ± 0.231 | 88.94 ± 0.38 | 93.14 ± 0.27 | 74.36 ± 1.12 | 62.36 ± 1.06 | 74.36 ± 1.12 | 70.11 |
| SETR-MLA | 90.09 ± 0.43 | 83.37 ± 0.24 | 89.19 ± 0.37 | 71.78 ± 2.48 | 58.08 ± 2.76 | 71.78 ± 2.48 | 69.67 |
| TransUNet | 90.67 ± 0.35 | 84.55 ± 0.55 | 90.02 ± 0.40 | 70.25 ± 1.24 | 56.77 ± 1.43 | 70.25 ± 1.24 | 67.14 |
| PVTV2 + EMCAD | 93.33 ± 0.19 | 88.74 ± 0.22 | 93.01 ± 0.16 | 75.24 ± 1.31 | 63.35 ± 1.441 | 75.24 ± 1.31 | 71.38 |
| FCBFormer | 93.04 ± 0.21 | 87.96 ± 0.34 | 92.48 ± 0.28 | 75.32 ± 0.551 | 62.91 ± 0.63 | 75.32 ± 0.551 | 71.521 |
| Mamba-based | |||||||
| Swin-UMamba | 92.57 ± 0.10 | 87.78 ± 0.10 | 92.20 ± 0.06 | 74.43 ± 1.23 | 62.26 ± 1.72 | 74.43 ± 1.23 | 70.93 |
| Swin-UMamba-D | 93.39 ± 0.19 | 89.06 ± 0.201 | 93.19 ± 0.141 | 73.83 ± 1.68 | 61.77 ± 1.48 | 73.83 ± 1.68 | 69.36 |
| UMamba-Bot | 88.47 ± 0.20 | 81.43 ± 0.14 | 87.38 ± 0.22 | 67.03 ± 2.52 | 52.76 ± 2.86 | 67.03 ± 2.52 | 64.78 |
| UMamba-Enc | 87.72 ± 0.11 | 80.74 ± 0.13 | 86.64 ± 0.16 | 66.35 ± 1.96 | 52.74 ± 2.31 | 66.35 ± 1.96 | 65.33 |
| VM-UNETV2 | 93.09 ± 0.29 | 88.38 ± 0.34 | 92.76 ± 0.33 | 73.82 ± 1.73 | 61.41 ± 2.09 | 73.82 ± 1.73 | 69.49 |
- Citation: Chan IN, Wong PK, Yan T, Hu YY, Chan CI, Qin YY, Wong CH, Chan IW, Lam IH, Wong SH, Li Z, Gao S, Yu HH, Yao L, Zhao BL, Hu Y. Assessing deep learning models for multi-class upper endoscopic disease segmentation: A comprehensive comparative study. World J Gastroenterol 2025; 31(41): 111184
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v31/i41/111184.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v31.i41.111184