# A Novel Evolution Strategy of Level Set Method for the Segmentation of Overlapping Cervical Cells
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Quantitative Evaluation of Our Segmentation Results
#### 4.2.1 Quantitative Comparison with Baseline Method
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DC \(\boldsymbol{>0.6}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DC \(\boldsymbol{>0.8}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DC \(\boldsymbol{>0.9}\)**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{ISBI-14 Train-45 Dataset} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lu [33]} & DC = 0.905(0.078), FNO = 0.126(0.181) & DC = 0.912(0.066), FNO = 0.148(0.206) & DC = 0.924(0.089), FNO = 0.211(0.244) & DC = 0.951(0.027), FNO = 0.441(0.309) \\  & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.917(0.087), FTP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.006(0.009) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.920(0.080), FTP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.005(0.007) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.927(0.066), FTP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.004(0.005) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.943(0.042), FTP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.002(0.003) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & DC = 0.917(0.088), FNO = 0.078(0.098) & DC = 0.923(0.095), FNO = 0.104(0.126) & DC = 0.935(0.045), FNO = 0.200(2.020) & DC = 0.960(0.0023), FNO = 0.456(0.317) \\  & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.930(0.069), FTP = 0.005(0.007) & TP = 0.931(0.065), FTP = 0.004(0.006) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.936(0.056), FTP = 0.004(0.005) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.947(0.039), FTP = 0.001(0.002) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{ISBI-14 Test-90 Dataset} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lu [33]} & DC = 0.871(0.102), FNO = 0.254(0.268) & DC = 0.891(0.092), FNO = 0.317(0.284) & DC = 0.920(0.089), FNO = 0.493(0.304) & DC = 0.956(0.029), FNO = 0.630(0.301) \\  & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.982(0.106), FTP = 0.005(0.007) & TP = 0.985(0.102), FTP = 0.003(0.006) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.913(0.082), FTP = 0.002(0.003) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.947(0.039), FTP = 0.001(0.002) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Ours} & DC = 0.882(0.095), FNO = 0.178(0.172) & DC = 0.994(0.073), FNO = 0.281(0.226) & DC = 0.951(0.051), FNO = 0.450(0.269) & DC = 0.960(0.027), FNO = 0.663(0.292) \\  & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.966(0.091), FTP = 0.005(0.007) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.911(0.085), FTP = 0.003(0.005) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.925(0.071), FTP = 0.002(0.004) & TP\({}_{\rm p}\) = 0.948(0.0044), FTP = 0.001(0.001) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Quantitative comparison against the baseline method [3] on the train-45 and test-90 datasets (using the mean and standard deviation results of each measure), as a function of the Dice coefficient (DC) thresholds at TH = 15. Object-based false negative rate (FN\({}_{\rm{D}}\)), mean true positive rate (TP\({}_{\rm{P}}\)) and mean false positive rate (FP\({}_{\rm{P}}\)). Figure 8: Illustration of quantitative comparisons in terms of mean the Dice coefficient (DC), object\(-\)based false negative rate (FN\({}_{\text{O}}\)), mean true positive rate (TP\({}_{\text{P}}\)), and mean false positive rate (FP\({}_{\text{P}}\)) against the baseline method (reproduced from ([PERSON] et al., 2015), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2015) on the (**a**) train-45 and (**b**) test-90 datasets (using the mean and standard deviation results of each measure) at TH = 15. This is a visualization of Table 3.