Table 7.
Comparison of the prediction performance between our proposed method and other different methods on H.pylori dataset
| Methods | ACC(%) | SN(%) | PPV(%) | MCC(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our method(MMI + NMBAC) | 87.59 | 86.81 | 88.23 | 75.24 |
| Our method(MMI) | 85.42 | 85.22 | 87.70 | 70.71 |
| Our method(NMBAC) | 85.59 | 83.33 | 89.53 | 71.35 |
| You’s work(AC+CT+LD+MAC) [30] | 87.50 | 88.95 | 86.15 | 78.13 |
| You’s work(MCD)[16] | 84.91 | 83.24 | 86.12 | 74.40 |
| Huang’s work(DCT + SMR) [19] | 86.74 | 86.43 | 87.01 | 76.99 |
| Phylogenetic bootstrap [33] | 75.80 | 69.80 | 80.20 | N/A a |
| HKNN [24] | 84.00 | 86.00 | 84.00 | N/A a |
| Signature products [32] | 83.40 | 79.90 | 85.70 | N/A a |
| Ensemble of HKNN [25] | 86.60 | 86.70 | 85.00 | N/A a |
| Boosting | 79.52 | 80.37 | 81.69 | 70.64 |
aN/A means not available