The results are similar but not identical to the original images and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.</p
Results of illustration of sample size for two samples based on differences in means.</p
(a)-(f) Fused images by different methods, (g)-(l) Residual images by (a)-(f) with Fig 5(B3).</p
<p>Representative examples for different image quality scores. The examples show curved multiplanar ...
Poor quality (IQ = 0) due to incorrect slice location (A) and extreme imaging artefacts (B). 0 < IQ ...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
Comparison of crack optimization results using different image recognition methods.</p
Bad samples in segmentation results, (a) are the original image, (b) are the Ground-truth, (c) are t...
<p>Comparison results of different registration techniques applied to aerial images.</p
Comparison between tilted plate and flat plate visualizing how results change based on angle.</p
<p>Quantitative results associated with different algorithms for the abdominal image.</p
<p>Methods of Blinding Outcome Assessors Depending on the Primary Outcome Considered</p
Results of the matching and suggestion process for polygons extracted from aerial images.</p
Comparison between the results obtained from analytical calculations and the FFD method.</p
<p>n/a, not applicable</p><p>Results of clinical studies using TE techniques (n = 6).</p
<p>Errors committed in the interpretation of results photos according to the three possible situatio...
Results of illustration of sample size for two samples based on differences in means.</p
(a)-(f) Fused images by different methods, (g)-(l) Residual images by (a)-(f) with Fig 5(B3).</p
<p>Representative examples for different image quality scores. The examples show curved multiplanar ...
Poor quality (IQ = 0) due to incorrect slice location (A) and extreme imaging artefacts (B). 0 < IQ ...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
Comparison of crack optimization results using different image recognition methods.</p
Bad samples in segmentation results, (a) are the original image, (b) are the Ground-truth, (c) are t...
<p>Comparison results of different registration techniques applied to aerial images.</p
Comparison between tilted plate and flat plate visualizing how results change based on angle.</p
<p>Quantitative results associated with different algorithms for the abdominal image.</p
<p>Methods of Blinding Outcome Assessors Depending on the Primary Outcome Considered</p
Results of the matching and suggestion process for polygons extracted from aerial images.</p
Comparison between the results obtained from analytical calculations and the FFD method.</p
<p>n/a, not applicable</p><p>Results of clinical studies using TE techniques (n = 6).</p
<p>Errors committed in the interpretation of results photos according to the three possible situatio...
Results of illustration of sample size for two samples based on differences in means.</p
(a)-(f) Fused images by different methods, (g)-(l) Residual images by (a)-(f) with Fig 5(B3).</p
<p>Representative examples for different image quality scores. The examples show curved multiplanar ...
DOI
Add to ORKG