Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Pattern Recognit. 2016 Sep 22;63:468–475. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2016.09.027

Table 2.

Comparison of visit-level performance: our image-based classifiers vs. Pap tests and HPV tests.

Method accu(%) sensi(%) speci(%)
Alfaro ThinPrep 51.26±10.02 20.69±19 81.82±5.07
Cytyc ThinPrep 69.01±4.77 49.55±8.14 88.46±3.33
Costa Rica Pap 63.77±4.18 39.42±7.65 88.12±3.18
Hopkins Pap 66.56±9.54 36.00±20.67 97.11±2.51
HPV16 64.01±4.66 33.82±7.41 94.19±3.69
HPV18 53.07±1.95 08.16±3.98 97.97±0.91

our RF.PLBP-PLAB-PHOG 70.50±6.02 51.00±6.07 90.00±0
our ft-CNN 65.00±5.11 40.00±7.34 90.00±0