Response classification uses noise masking to identify the useful information in each single-sensor and multi-sensor image for an observer to make a decision.
Further, we showed that applying the EARL harmonization strategy provided more consistent response classification with kappa values greater than 0.93 for all the scenarios involving harmonized SULs, compared to the OSEMPET1/OSEMPET2 scenario used as a standard of reference.
There is some promise in the recent work by Bittner (2015), which uses response classification (e.g., Ahumada, 2002, Ahumada & Lovell, 1971) to assess the unique information used to make a decision from each sensor image.
To compare 3 methods of dimensional assessment, with particular attention to a new software assisted method of volume calculation, in soft tissue sarcoma, and to investigate the interobserver agreement and the intermethod agreement in chemotherapy response classification and resultant clinical repercussions.
These two independent tests results corroborated our immune response classification results (Table 2).
However, the technique shares a comparable disadvantage with response classification techniques which relies in altering the information available compared to natural vision (i.e., full face).
Clinical response was assessed before each treatment cycle, and the final response evaluated 3 weeks after the 4th cycle for overall response classification.
All patient records were subject to central audit for response classification (by E.L., B.Ø. and P.E.L .. Response classifications were completed and approved without any knowledge about result from laboratory analysis.
This hypothesis-free clustering based on inter-patient Euclidean distances according to viral titer demonstrated that patients could be placed into three groups corresponding to the response classification of patients.
Compared to response classification techniques (e.g., [22], [23]) the Spotlight technique offers the advantage of controlling and providing active dynamic information use with a very limited number of trials.
A 3×3 (stimulus categories x response classifications) repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant main effect either in stimulus category (F2,34 = 0.865) or in response classification (F2,68 = 1.195), and also showed no significant interaction between the two factors (F4,68 = 0.275).
