Table 3.

Comparison of the proposed computerized work with available work

References	Method, feature	FS	CV	Classifier	Acc	Sen	Spe
[8]	HMMs + Coupled HMMs, 2002	Not used	Tenfold	NN	82.98	–	–
[9]	Nonlinear + HOS Features, 2012	p-value	Threefold	SVM	91.7	90	93.33
[10]	WPT + HOS Features, 2013	p-value	Tenfold	KNN	95.8	95.8	95.8
[15]	CWT + Statistical Features, 2014	Not used	Tenfold	SVM	94.29	–	–
[16]	TQWT + Nonlinear Features, 2017	PCA	Tenfold	LS-SVM	97.02	96.53	97.5
[11]	Granger Causality, 2017	Not used	Fivefold	SVM	90	95.3	82.4
[17]	DTCWT + Nonlinear Features, 2018	p-value	Tenfold	SVM	97.91	–	–
[18]	TBOWFB + Nonlinear Features, 2018	p-value	Tenfold	LS-SVM	97.08	97.08	97.08
[12]	Synchronization Likelihood, 2018	ROC	Tenfold	SVM	98	99.9	95
[20]	EMD + Power Band + Fractal Dimension, 2019	ICA	Tenfold	KNN	98.91	99.02	99.24
[21]	FBSE-EWT + Nonlinear Features, 2020	Not used	Leave one out	LS-SVM	98.8	98.3	99.1
[22]	EWT + Statistical Features, 2020	p-value	Leave one out	LS-SVM	98.75	98.35	99.16
[30]	NN, 2020	Not used	Tenfold	LSTM	93	95	92
This work	FHWT + All Features, 2022	No	Tenfold	SMO	93.3	93.3	93.3
This work	FHWT + Selected Features, 2022	CFS	Tenfold	Hoeffding Tree	94.2	97.5	90.8
This work	FHWT + Selected Features, 2022	CFS	Tenfold	RNN	97.5	96.7	98.3
This work	FHWT + Matrix Determinant, 2022	No	Tenfold	RNN	93.3	93.3	93.3
This work	FHWT + ADI, 2022	No	Tenfold	RNN	100	100	100