Table 4.
The performance of our propose method compared with the previous methods.
| Method | Overall | N (%) | SVEB (%) | VEB (%) | F (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | Se | PPV | F1 | Se | PPV | F1 | Se | PPV | F1 | Se | PPV | F1 | |
| Liu et al.34 | 99.2 | 97.3 | 95.1 | 96.2 | 90.5 | 91.1 | 90.8 | 98.5 | 97.9 | 98.2 | 98.3 | 100 | 99.1 |
| Oliveira et al.35 | 95.3 | 97.1 | 97.8 | 97.4 | 76.1 | 56.6 | 64.9 | 93.0 | 95.0 | – | – | – | – |
| Chen et al.36 | 93.1 | 98.4 | 95.4 | 96.9 | 29.5 | 38.4 | 33.4 | 70.8 | 85.1 | 77.3 | – | – | – |
| Kung et al.37 | 98.6 | – | - | – | 75.4 | 88.7 | 81.5 | 96.7 | 97.4 | 97.0 | – | – | – |
| Ince et al.38 | 98.3 | – | – | – | 63.5 | 53.7 | 58.1 | 84.6 | 87.4 | 86.0 | – | – | – |
| Shi et al.39 | 94.2 | 95.3 | 98.9 | 97.1 | 90.7 | 47.9 | 62.7 | 92.9 | 84.5 | 88.5 | – | – | – |
| Xie et al.40 | 96.5 | 94.3 | 87.7 | 90.0 | 79.7 | 90.6 | 84.8 | 97.1 | 96.2 | 96.6 | 90.8 | 74.1 | 81.6 |
| Zhai et al.41 | 96.1 | 87.9 | 92.0 | 89.9 | 76.8 | 74.0 | 75.4 | 93.8 | 92.4 | 93.1 | 62.4 | 79.6 | 70.0 |
| Proposed | 99.6 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.9 | 98.0 | 96.6 | 97.3 | 99.1 | 98.9 | 99.0 | 90.7 | 94.2 | 92.4 |
Significant values are in bold.