Comparison of three different grades of ingredients as measured by sieve and image-based methods (%).</p
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Difference in percentage between SQ and ImageJ measured for the metrics of total area, total intensi...
<p>Classification results of three methods (%). The highest results of each method are shown in bold...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>Comparison of percentages of blank types subsequently retouched or used in layer GS.</p
<p>The assessment of methodological quality items shown as percentages across all included studies.<...
The percentage of respondents who recognize the different food additives (n = 1038).</p
<p>Percentage of common peaks detected by each method included in the comparison and related to each...
<p>The comparison of the real weights and the weights estimated from different methods.</p
<p>Comparison of the FQ grades as evaluated by both methods with the crop yield grades.</p
Calculated percentage of blue lacquer remaining on the parts, based on different views of the test p...
<p>Chemical properties for each soil sample and the sieve plummet balance method (SPM).</p
<p>Pairwise comparison of agreement among laboratory methods using crude agreement percentages and k...
<p>Comparison of the measurements between the three models, for each measurement.</p
Statistical analysis and comparison of the optimum results obtained by three algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Difference in percentage between SQ and ImageJ measured for the metrics of total area, total intensi...
<p>Classification results of three methods (%). The highest results of each method are shown in bold...
Comparison of results obtained with sieving method and image-based method (C = 0.85) (%).</p
<p>Comparison of percentages of blank types subsequently retouched or used in layer GS.</p
<p>The assessment of methodological quality items shown as percentages across all included studies.<...
The percentage of respondents who recognize the different food additives (n = 1038).</p
<p>Percentage of common peaks detected by each method included in the comparison and related to each...
<p>The comparison of the real weights and the weights estimated from different methods.</p
<p>Comparison of the FQ grades as evaluated by both methods with the crop yield grades.</p
Calculated percentage of blue lacquer remaining on the parts, based on different views of the test p...
<p>Chemical properties for each soil sample and the sieve plummet balance method (SPM).</p
<p>Pairwise comparison of agreement among laboratory methods using crude agreement percentages and k...
<p>Comparison of the measurements between the three models, for each measurement.</p
Statistical analysis and comparison of the optimum results obtained by three algorithms.</p
<p>Comparison of visualization techniques on the basis of typical measurement systems.</p
Difference in percentage between SQ and ImageJ measured for the metrics of total area, total intensi...
<p>Classification results of three methods (%). The highest results of each method are shown in bold...
DOI
Add to ORKG