Table 5.
A comprehensive comparison with other studies
| Methods | Application capabilitya | Functionsb | Positioningc | Identifying | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | S3 | S4 | Mur | P | I | Se | PPV | Acc | Se | PPV | Acc | |
| Proposed method | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 100 | 99.93 | 99.93 | 98.63 | 99.86 | 98.49 |
| Naseri et al. [8] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 99.00 | 98.60 | NM |
| Varghees et al. [21] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 99.43 | 93.56 | 93.06 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Sepehria et al. [22] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓* | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 93.6 |
| Moukadem et al. [6] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 96/97 | 95/95 | NM | 95 | 97 | NM |
| Moukadem et al. [26] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 95 | 98 | NM | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Pedrosa et al. [23] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 89.2 | 98.6 | NM | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Wang et al. [24] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM | NM |
| Schmidt et al. [25] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 98.8 | 98.6 | NM |
| Tseng et al. [2] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | NM | NM | NM | 92.4 | 88.1 | NM |
| Zhong et al. [27] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NM | NM | NM | 92.84 | NM | NM |
| Wang et al. [28] | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NM | NM | NM | 96.8 | NM | NM |
The italic values are represent the optimal results, compared with the results achieved in other methods/studies
aN: normal; Mur: murmurs
bP: positioning; I: identifying; ✓*: only available for S1 and S2
cNM: not mentioned