<p>C: combination, R: ratio, N/A: non applicable.</p><p>*: statistically significant difference (chi-squared test). Algorithm 1 was studied on the retrospective series, Algorithm 2 was studied on the prospective series.</p><p>Comparison of the 2 algorithms according to the type of analysis and the counting method.</p
This article introduces alternative techniques to compare algorithmic performance. The first approac...
Comparison of manual plaque counting methods within and between Analyst 1 and Analyst 2 (n = 72 well...
Statistical analysis and comparison of the optimum results obtained by three algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers...
<p>Comparison of the proposed algorithm with the state of the art methods available in literature.</...
Quantitative comparison between the state-of-the-art SR algorithms on 3 test datasets.</p
<p>TP, FP and FN for each algorithm. Note that each plot has a different scale, which is very low in...
<p>For all samples processed with a same protocol the average relative coverage was calculated and r...
This study assesses the extent to which the two main Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs), i.e...
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p><b>Comparison across the three algorithms in terms of overlapping regions, total copy numbers and...
<p>Comparison of new method with single-QTL-based method and Chi-squared test.</p
Comparison of performance obtained by our approach with other state-of-the-art algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of QRS enhancement techniques based on algorithm usage and assessment criteria.</p
This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms...
This article introduces alternative techniques to compare algorithmic performance. The first approac...
Comparison of manual plaque counting methods within and between Analyst 1 and Analyst 2 (n = 72 well...
Statistical analysis and comparison of the optimum results obtained by three algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of the average classification accuracies of different algorithms for different numbers...
<p>Comparison of the proposed algorithm with the state of the art methods available in literature.</...
Quantitative comparison between the state-of-the-art SR algorithms on 3 test datasets.</p
<p>TP, FP and FN for each algorithm. Note that each plot has a different scale, which is very low in...
<p>For all samples processed with a same protocol the average relative coverage was calculated and r...
This study assesses the extent to which the two main Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs), i.e...
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p><b>Comparison across the three algorithms in terms of overlapping regions, total copy numbers and...
<p>Comparison of new method with single-QTL-based method and Chi-squared test.</p
Comparison of performance obtained by our approach with other state-of-the-art algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of QRS enhancement techniques based on algorithm usage and assessment criteria.</p
This paper reviews five statistical tests for determining whether one learning algorithm outperforms...
This article introduces alternative techniques to compare algorithmic performance. The first approac...
Comparison of manual plaque counting methods within and between Analyst 1 and Analyst 2 (n = 72 well...
Statistical analysis and comparison of the optimum results obtained by three algorithms.</p