Table 2 Quantitative result comparison of different models on the DRIVE

Zhao et al. [11]

0.7420

0.9820

0.9540

-

-

-

0.8620

Azzopardi et al. [13]

0.7716

0.9710

0.9497

-

-

-

0.9563

Fraz et al. [15]

0.7152

0.9768

0.9430

-

-

-

-

Jiang et al. [20]

0.7540

0.9825

0.9624

-

-

-

0.9810

Liskowski et al. [21]

0.7569

0.9816

0.9533

-

-

-

0.9744

Fu et al. [22]

0.7294

-

0.9470

-

-

-

Jin et al. [28]

0.7894

0.9870

0.9697

0.8537

-

-

0.9856

Laibacher et al. [31]

-

-

0.9630

-

-

0.8006

0.9714

Alom et al. [33]

0.8108

0.9871

0.9706

-

0.8155

-

0.9782

Zhuang[34]

0.7856

0.9810

0.9561

-

0.8202

-

0.9793

Hu et al. [36]

0.7772

0.9793

0.9533

-

-

-

0.9759

Mo et al. [37]

0.7779

0.9780

0.9521

-

-

-

0.9782

Chen et al. [38]

0.7295

0.9696

0.9449

-

-

-

0.9557

Proposed method

0.8179

0.9879

0.9846

0.8667

0.8236

0.8105

0.9874