Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Summary of related work.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

CNN, FCN, and FCEDN architecture.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

KELM configuration.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Genetic algorithm flowchart.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Proposed methodology.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Sample images from the datasets.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

A Detailed description of the dataset.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Description of the experimental augmented dataset.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Configuration of FCEDN.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparative overview of parameter configurations for FCEDN, enhanced with G-GWO and G-GWO-KELM optimizations.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Performance evaluation matrices.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 6.

Segmentation performance matrices comparison.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Input, pre-processing, ground truth, and the predicted segmentation results were obtained by the proposed model for some sample images.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 7.

Different classifiers Performance evaluation using IDRiD dataset.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 8.

ACC, SEN, and SPC evaluation using IDRiD dataset.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

MCC, ER, and F1-Score evaluation using IDRiD dataset.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Confusion matrix comparison of four algorithms on IDRiD dataset for diabetic retinopathy, showcasing GGWO-KELM’s exceptional performance.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 8.

Different classifiers performance evaluation using DR-HSGIS dataset.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Fig 11.

Accuracy evaluation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Sensitivity evaluation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Error Rate evaluation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Specificity evaluation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

MCC evaluation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

F-1 Score valuation using DR-HAGIS dataset.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Comparison of confusion matrices for different classifiers across three diseases: Diabetic retinopathy, DME, and Glaucoma.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Table 9.

Different classifiers performance evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 18.

Accuracy evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

Sensitivity evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Specificity evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Fig 21.

MCC evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 21 Expand

Fig 22.

Error Rate evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 22 Expand

Fig 23.

F-1 Score evaluation using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 23 Expand

Fig 24.

Comparison of confusion matrices for different classifiers using OIDR dataset.

More »

Fig 24 Expand

Table 10.

Comparitiva analysis.

More »

Table 10 Expand