<p>A. Bias compared to FASCount as the reference technology. B. Bias compared to FASCalibur as the reference technology.</p
<p>Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding reusing data among clinical and scient...
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Comparison of the classification accuracies of different algorithms and different feature fusion met...
<p>Summary of coefficients of determination and mean bias for all comparisons between instruments.</...
<p>(a) Passing-Bablok regression plot comparison of absolute CD4 count between PIMA and FACSCalibur;...
<p>Classification accuracy comparison with PIWAH, TIWAH and proposed research.</p
Comparison of accuracy for different approaches, where small value indicates good performance and bo...
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p>Comparison of the reference values provided by manufacturer and by our research.</p
<p>Comparisons are between ocular vs. point count methods for estimates of volume (A) and estimates ...
<p>Classification accuracy comparison of the proposed research with the state-of-the-art methods.</p
<p>Note: A, ETV+IFN vs. ETV; B, ETV+IFN vs. IFN</p><p>Publication bias for all outcomes included.</p
<p>Comparison of accuracy and precision of different methods based median and standard deviation of ...
<p>The estimation bias from the reviewer assignment approach adopted in ATC-2011 and the CAREER appr...
<p>Comparison of accuracy rate of different features extracted with classification algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding reusing data among clinical and scient...
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Comparison of the classification accuracies of different algorithms and different feature fusion met...
<p>Summary of coefficients of determination and mean bias for all comparisons between instruments.</...
<p>(a) Passing-Bablok regression plot comparison of absolute CD4 count between PIMA and FACSCalibur;...
<p>Classification accuracy comparison with PIWAH, TIWAH and proposed research.</p
Comparison of accuracy for different approaches, where small value indicates good performance and bo...
<p>Comparison of the average precision rates, recall rates and F1 values for the different classific...
<p>Comparison of the reference values provided by manufacturer and by our research.</p
<p>Comparisons are between ocular vs. point count methods for estimates of volume (A) and estimates ...
<p>Classification accuracy comparison of the proposed research with the state-of-the-art methods.</p
<p>Note: A, ETV+IFN vs. ETV; B, ETV+IFN vs. IFN</p><p>Publication bias for all outcomes included.</p
<p>Comparison of accuracy and precision of different methods based median and standard deviation of ...
<p>The estimation bias from the reviewer assignment approach adopted in ATC-2011 and the CAREER appr...
<p>Comparison of accuracy rate of different features extracted with classification algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of self-rated relevance and expertise regarding reusing data among clinical and scient...
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Comparison of the classification accuracies of different algorithms and different feature fusion met...