Skip to main content
. 2025 Sep 29;15:33488. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15920-x

Table 2.

Performance comparison between MPCCI and compared methods on the BUSI and FJPH datasets for ultrasound images. The best and second best results are marked in bold and with underline respectively.

Method BUSI FJPH
ACC (%) P (%) R (%) F1(%) ACC (%) P (%) R (%) F1(%)
TNTs*16 81.20 ± 3.20 76.30 ± 5.70 61.10 ± 10.40 67.9 ± 5.70 - - - -
BVA Net*46 84.3 88.3 75.1 - - - - -
HoVer-Trans*35 85.50 ± 5.00 87.60 ± 6.20 86.70 ± 11.50 87.20 ± 8.00 - - - -
MIB Net*42 92.97 ± 1.11 93.21 ± 1.50 92.97 ± 1.10 92.85 ± 1.01 - - - -
ResNet1818 91.39 ± 2.48 91.76 ± 1.72 95.91 ± 1.82 93.75 ± 1.78 80.90 ± 1.12 80.31 ± 1.17 87.60 ± 4.40 83.74 ± 0.87
Fishr39 93.04 ± 2.74 96.61 ± 1.34 93.18 ± 2.36 94.34 ± 1.23 84.26 ± 0.84 87.87 ± 2.91 74.35 ± 3.77 80.55 ± 2.45
CABNet17 89.23 ± 5.37 95.12 ± 1.78 88.63 ± 3.63 91.76 ± 3.15 83.14 ± 1.49 83.33 ± 4.63 76.92 ± 9.92 80.00 ± 7.17
MixupNet51 92.30 ± 2.69 95.34 ± 1.68 93.18 ± 2.51 94.25 ± 1.83 84.26 ± 2.34 79.06 ± 3.21 87.17 ± 2.95 82.92 ± 2.14
MixStyleNet54 86.15 ± 5.04 90.69 ± 4.93 88.63 ± 6.42 89.65 ± 4.64 76.40 ± 1.18 76.47 ± 2.43 66.66 ± 3.88 71.23 ± 2.94
VGG1640 93.12 ± 1.08 94.45 ± 1.26 94.45 ± 1.45 94.45 ± 1.31 82.47 ± 1.80 83.33 ± 0.98 85.60 ± 4.40 84.41 ± 0.74
ViT9 90.76 ± 3.72 93.18 ± 3.55 93.18 ± 4.16 93.18 ± 3.77 74.83 ± 0.45 74.33 ± 0.67 84.40 ± 1.60 79.03 ± 0.21
Mamba15 67.69 ± 0.00 67.69 ± 0.00 100.00 ± 0.00 80.73 ± 0.00 68.53 ± 0.00 68.33 ± 0.00 82.00 ± 0.00 74.54 ± 0.00
MPCCI (Ours) 93.23 ± 2.15 94.20 ± 1.36 95.91 ± 1.82 95.04 ± 1.59 85.62 ± 3.14 86.62 ± 5.05 88.80 ± 3.20 87.57 ± 2.23

*These results are directly cited from the original papers, as their source codes are not publicly accessible.