Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci. 2016 Nov 18;1(1):68–75. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2016.2630685

TABLE II.

Ranking of the methods in terms of ROI 2 normalized standard deviation

Rank Method
1 (best) Method 12 (Exponential, 1 noise realization, 5-point running average)
2 Method 11 (Exponential, with a power γ, noiseless weight)
3 Method 5 (Mathematical with a power γ)
4 Method 2 (Mathematical, ignoring electronic noise)
5 Method 1 (Mathematical) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 10 (Exponential, noiseless weight) [According to Fig. 5]
6 Method 10 (Exponential, noiseless weight) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 1 (Mathematical) [According to Fig. 5]
7 Method 7 (Exponential, 1 noise realization)
8 Method 3 (1000 noise realization) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 8 (Constant weight) [According to Fig. 5]
9 Method 8 (Constant weight) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 4 (Mathematical, 1 noise realization) [According to Fig. 5]
10 Method 6 (Popular) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 3 (1000 noise realization) [According to Fig. 5]
11 Method 4 (Mathematical, 1 noise realization) [According to Fig. 4]
Method 6 (Popular) [According to Fig. 5]
12 (worst) Method 9 (Totally wrong)