Table 5.

Comparison between the proposed method and other methods using the same dataset.

Data sets combination	Methodology	Study	Acc (%)	Our Acc (%)
A vs. E	TFA + ANN	Tzallas et al. [4]	100	99.52
	DWT + Kmeans + MLPNN	Orhan et al. [6]	100
	1-D-LBP + FT/BN	Kaya et al. [8]	99.50
	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	100
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	100
	LMD + GA-SVM	Zhang and Chen [1]	100
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	100
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem [17]	99.50
B vs. E	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	99.25	99.11
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	100
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.6
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem[17]	99.50
C vs. E	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	99.62	98.02
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	99.50
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.1
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem [17]	98.50
D vs. E	1-D-LBP + FT/BN	Kaya et al. [8]	95.50	97.63
	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	95.62
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	98
	LMD + GA-SVM	Zhang and Chen [1]	98.10
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.4
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem [17]	98.50
AB vs. E	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	99.16	99.38
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.8
CD vs. E	1-D-LBP + FT/BN	Kaya et al. [8]	97.00	98.03
	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	98.75
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.7
ABCD vs. E	DWT + Kmeans + MLPNN	Orhan et al. [6]	99.60	98.76
	DWT + NB/KNN	Sharmila and Geethanjali [10]	97.1
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	99
	LMD + GA-SVM	Zhang and Chen [1]	98.87
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.7
B vs. D vs. E	CNN	Acharya et al. [16]	88.7	98.06
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem [17]	98.00
AB vs. CD vs. E	DWT + Kmeans + MLPNN	Orhan et al. [6]	95.60	96.97
	TQWT + KNNE + SVM	Bhattacharyya et al. [11]	98.60
	LMD + GA-SVM	Zhang and Chen [1]	98.40
	CNN + M-V	Ullah et al. [2]	99.1
A vs. B vs. C vs. D vs. E	TFA + ANN	Tzallas et al. [4]	89	93.55
	MEMD + ANN	Zahra et al. [12]	87.2
	CWT + CNN	Turk and Ozerdem [17]	93.60