Results
Workshop proceedings
The proceedings of the BRATS2012 challenge, containing a description of each method as well as it performance on the training data, are now available.
Live challenge results
As reflected in the Dice score table below, the following methods performed best at the live challenge in Nice: Zikic et al., Bauer et al. and Hamamci et al.. Congratulations to the winning teams!
| Core | ||||
| Clinical | Synthetic | |||
| High-grade | Low Grade | High Grade | Low Grade | |
| Automatic | ||||
| Shin et al. | 0.144 | 0.232 | 0.284 | 0.072 |
| Bauer et al. | 0.512 | 0.332 | 0.779 | 0.858 |
| Zikic et al. | 0.476 | 0.339 | 0.869 | 0.842 |
| Subbanna et al.* | 0.398 | 0.420 | ||
| Xiao et al. | 0.337 | 0.224 | 0.414 | 0.469 |
| Zhao et al. | 0.058 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Semi-automatic | ||||
| Hamamci et al. | 0.694 | 0.324 | 0 | 0 |
| Edema | ||||
| Clinical | Synthetic | |||
| Automatic | ||||
| High-grade | Low Grade | High Grade | Low Grade | |
| Shin et al. | 0.038 | 0.061 | 0.312 | 0.213 |
| Bauer et al. | 0.536 | 0.179 | 0.785 | 0.746 |
| Zikic et al. | 0.598 | 0.324 | 0.850 | 0.749 |
| Subbanna et al. | 0.696 | 0.645 | ||
| Xiao et al. | 0.539 | 0.279 | 0.343 | 0.100 |
| Zhao et al. | 0.003 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Semi-automatic | ||||
| Hamamci et al. | 0.539 | 0.033 | 0 | 0 |
| * Updated after the workshop because of detected file format conversion issues | ||||
A detailed analysis of each method's performance, including several other validation metrics, is also available.
Some pictures of the event
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
