Experimental observation of gastruloids and shape quantification using LOCO-EFA. by Martijn A. de Jong (17896732)

datasheet1_Graph Neural Networks for Maximum Constraint Satisfaction.pdf by Jan Tönshoff (10192709)

Bayesian Spatial Binary Regression for Label Fusion in Structural Neuroimaging by D. Andrew Brown (6584837)

Improved support vector machine classification algorithm based on adaptive feature weight updating in the Hadoop cluster environment by Jianfang Cao (1881379)

“…This result reflects the effectiveness of the algorithm, which provides a basis for the effective analysis and processing of image big data.…”

Image processing workflow. by Denis Tamiev (7404980)

“…<p>Raw fluorescent microscope images (a) were processed with a binary segmentation algorithm, and clusters of bacterial cells were manually annotated. …”

Testing results for classifying AD, MCI and NC. by Nicodemus Songose Awarayi (18414494)

“…<div><p>This study aims to develop an optimally performing convolutional neural network to classify Alzheimer’s disease into mild cognitive impairment, normal controls, or Alzheimer’s disease classes using a magnetic resonance imaging dataset. …”

Summary of existing CNN models. by Nicodemus Songose Awarayi (18414494)

“…<div><p>This study aims to develop an optimally performing convolutional neural network to classify Alzheimer’s disease into mild cognitive impairment, normal controls, or Alzheimer’s disease classes using a magnetic resonance imaging dataset. …”

Fig 3 - by Ali Ahmed (2567584)

Flowchart of software workflow. by Gavrielle R. Untracht (11820311)

Sample image for illustration. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Segmentation, trace denoising and spike extraction framework. by Changjia Cai (10647521)

Quadratic polynomial in 2D image plane. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Image1_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Image3_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Image2_Applying the Hubbard-Stratonovich Transformation to Solve Scheduling Problems Under Inequality Constraints With Quantum Annealing.TIF by Sizhuo Yu (11429743)

Steps in the extraction of 14 coordinates from the CT slices for the curved MPR. by Linus Woitke (22783534)

“…<p>It shows the step-by-step transformation for two examples on the left and right sides: a) a binary mask of the lower dental arch is shown, which is compared with the binarized CT images to obtain the best slice containing the lower jaw, as shown in b). …”

Presentation_1_Modified GAN Augmentation Algorithms for the MRI-Classification of Myocardial Scar Tissue in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.PPTX by Umesh C. Sharma (10785063)

“…Currently, there are no optimized deep-learning algorithms for the automated classification of scarred vs. normal myocardium. …”

Comparison analysis of computation time. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Process flow diagram of CBFD. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”

Precision recall curve. by Indhumathi S. (19173013)

“…The results demonstrate that CBFD achieves a average precision of 0.97 for the test image, outperforming Superpoint, Directional Intensified Tertiary Filtering (DITF), Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), and Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), which achieve scores of 0.95, 0.92, 0.72, 0.66, 0.63 and 0.50 respectively. …”