You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Reviewer 3 of ICPR 2016 submission 710 (Review 4913)
Comments to the author
This paper is a survey on current state of automatic classification methodologies to identify Diabetic Macular Edema (DME). The major contributions are providing a public benchmarks on a DME dataset. The paper presentation is clear enough to follow, even that it is a survey paper, and number of page is limited.
My comments on this paper are:
A survey should include some suggestions, or some observations or trend to the issues (in this case, that is DEM identification ). However , no any suggestions on features, or comments on archived performance (Which one are feasible or reasonable to develop applications in daily clinic.)
Recently, many feature learning method can be applied. In this paper, the authors surveyed on hand-craft designed features (such as, LBP, HOG, Edge, so on). Then it is more interesting if the authors also include results of recent trends of the feature learning topic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Reviewer 3 of ICPR 2016 submission 710 (Review 4913)
Comments to the author
This paper is a survey on current state of automatic classification methodologies to identify Diabetic Macular Edema (DME). The major contributions are providing a public benchmarks on a DME dataset. The paper presentation is clear enough to follow, even that it is a survey paper, and number of page is limited.
My comments on this paper are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: