Skip to main content
. 2025 Aug 12;16:1626569. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1626569

Table 6.

Performance comparison of LCAMNet and several classical CNN models on the SCEBD.

Models Accuracy (%) Recall (%) Precision (%) F1 (%) Kappa (%) MCC (%) GFLOPs (G) Parameters (M)
VGG13 89.03 89.04 89.15 89.03 87.64 87.53 11.36 133.05
ResNet34 88.52 88.54 89.02 88.66 86.88 86.94 3.68 21.80
ResNext50 85.97 85.99 86.48 86.12 83.96 84.00 4.29 25.03
DenseNet201 90.56 90.56 90.67 90.60 89.21 89.24 4.39 20.01
GoogLeNet 92.09 92.09 92.20 92.11 90.96 90.98 1.60 7.01
InceptionRes-NetV2 91.58 91.59 92.14 91.71 90.38 90.39 6.50 55.84
EfficientNet-B0 91.33 91.35 91.54 91.34 90.09 90.13 0.42 8.43
ShuffleNetV2 88.01 88.00 88.98 88.21 86.30 86.48 0.04 1.31
MobileNetV2 89.80 89.79 90.52 89.93 88.34 88.41 0.33 3.51
GhostNet 90.31 90.35 91.09 90.45 88.92 88.98 0.16 5.18
LCAMNet 92.60 92.64 92.85 92.64 91.55 91.58 0.03 1.30

Bold values indicate the best results in each column. For Accuracy, Recall, Precision, F1, Kappa, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), higher values indicate better performance. Conversely, for GFLOPs and Parameters, lower values indicate a more lightweight and efficient model.