Table 8. Performance of the algorithm for whooping sound detection using test data.
Case | Diag | Whoop | TP | TN | FP | FN | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | PPV(%) | NPV(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | P | Y | 1 | 528 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
2 | P | Y | 15 | 234 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 | 99.15 | 88.24 | 100.00 |
3 | P | N | 0 | 99 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
4 | P | Y | 1 | 113 | 0 | 2 | 33.33 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 98.26 |
5 | P | Y | 4 | 165 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
6 | P | Y | 1 | 565 | 0 | 1 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.82 |
7 | P | Y | 0 | 640 | 0 | 5 | 0.00 | 100.00 | - | 99.22 |
8 | P | Y | 0 | 229 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 100.00 | - | 99.57 |
9 | P | Y | 5 | 127 | 2 | 1 | 83.33 | 98.45 | 71.43 | 99.22 |
10 | P | N | 0 | 82 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
11 | NP | N | 0 | 364 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
12 | NP | N | 0 | 387 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
13 | NP | N | 0 | 95 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
14 | NP | N | 0 | 265 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
15 | NP | N | 0 | 102 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
16 | NP | N | 0 | 332 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
17 | NP | N | 0 | 248 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
18 | NP | N | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
19 | NP | N | 0 | 207 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
20 | NP | N | 0 | 275 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
21 | NP | N | 0 | 95 | 0 | 0 | - | 100.00 | - | 100.00 |
Total | 27 | 5227 | 4 | 10 | 72.97 | 99.92 | 87.10 | 99.81 |
Diag—indicates whether recording has pertussis (P) or non-pertussis (NP) diagnosis. Whoop—indicates whether recording has whooping sound; Y—Yes; N- No. TP—true positives; TN—true negatives; FP—false positives; FN—false negatives. Sen—sensitivity; Spe—specificity; PPV—positive predictive value; NPV—negative predictive value.