Fig nbsp xA The noise test performance

Fig. 9. The noise test performance of each feature with different parameters. Precision and recall rates were averaged for 60 frogs in K-Ras(G12C) inhibitor 6 training test. Refer to Fig. 5 caption for the explanation of the parameters corresponding to the different marker indexes.Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
Fig. 10. The intensity modification test performance of each feature with different parameters. Precision and recall rates were averaged for 60 frogs in the training test. Refer to Fig. 5 caption for the explanation of the parameters corresponding to the different marker indexes.Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
Looking at Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, the first and the most important observation was that the raw pixel feature performed better compared to all other features in rotation, scaling and blurring tests. We can also observe that the coarser resolutions (reduced size windows) provided better performing features against the finer resolutions. An exception to hair bulb was the unacceptably poor performance in the intensity modification test set (Fig. 10). However, a similar relation (cell size versus performance) was also observable in the winner of this test (HoG) and the granulometry features.