2019
DOI: 10.3788/co.20191204.0731
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Image processing method for ophthalmic optical coherence tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 2 shows that the segmentation result of the improved algorithm was the smallest of all the algorithms, which shows that the segmentation result of the improved algorithm was closer to the ideal segmentation result and had a better segmentation performance. Comparing the PSNR and iteration time of each algorithm in Table 3, the average PSNR of the improved algorithm was 0.7 dB higher than that of the KWFLICM algorithm, and the average iteration time of the improved algorithm was 500 s less than that of the KWFLICM algorithm [42,43]. The iteration times of the FCM_S and FLICM algorithms were the lowest, but the difference between the improved algorithm results and the PSNR was 2-5 dB.…”
Section: Segmentation Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Table 2 shows that the segmentation result of the improved algorithm was the smallest of all the algorithms, which shows that the segmentation result of the improved algorithm was closer to the ideal segmentation result and had a better segmentation performance. Comparing the PSNR and iteration time of each algorithm in Table 3, the average PSNR of the improved algorithm was 0.7 dB higher than that of the KWFLICM algorithm, and the average iteration time of the improved algorithm was 500 s less than that of the KWFLICM algorithm [42,43]. The iteration times of the FCM_S and FLICM algorithms were the lowest, but the difference between the improved algorithm results and the PSNR was 2-5 dB.…”
Section: Segmentation Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The remote sensing images of wheat fields, canyons and forests had multiplicative noise added with a mean value of 0 and mean squared deviations of 90, 121 and 61, respectively [50][51][52]. The numbers of clusters were 2, 2 and 3, respectively.…”
Section: Image Segmentation Test With Multiplicative Noisementioning
confidence: 99%