Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 18;43(5):738–749. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.025

Table 6. Quantitative comparisons of different RGC counting methods for test images.

Manual marking Dordea et al.
method
Cross et al. method Masin el al.
method
Our
method
RGCs-N1 36 468 48 934 (34.1%) 31 321 (14.1%) 31 671 (13.1%) 37 516 (2.97%)
RGCs-N2 43 473 45 989 (5.79%) 30 617 (29.5%) 40 800 (6.15%) 43 244 (0.53%)
RGCs-D1 4 418 7 160 (62.0%) 8 240 (86.5%) 3 953 (10.5%) 4 279 (3.14%)