Table 3.

Quantitative result comparison of different models on the STARE

Method	Se	Sp	Acc	Pr	F1	AUC
Zhao et al. [11]	0.7800	0.9780	0.9560	-	-	0.8700
Azzopardi et al. [13]	0.7716	0.9701	0.9497	-	-	0.9563
Fraz et al. [15]	0.7311	0.9680	0.9442	-	-	-
Wang et al. [19]	0.8104	0.9791	0.9621	-	-	0.9751
Jiang et al. [20]	0.8352	0.9846	0.9734	-	-	0.9900
Liskowski et al. [21]	0.8554	0.9862	0.9729	-	-	0.9928
Fu et al. [22]	0.7140	-	0.9536	-	-	-
Jin et al. [28]	0.7428	0.9920	0.9729	0.8856	-	0.9868
Alom et al. [33]	0.8108	0.9871	0.9706	-	0.8396	0.9909
Hu et al. [36]	0.7543	0.9814	0.9632	-	-	0.9751
Mo et al. [37]	0.8147	0.9844	0.9674	-	-	0.9885
Proposed method	0.8751	0.9894	0.9872	0.9856	0.8547	0.9941