Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 17;12085:422–434. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47436-2_32

Table 3.

Performance comparison on DS2 of MIT-BIH-AR

Method ACC N S V
REC PRE F1 REC PRE F1 REC PRE F1
DDCNN + CLSM 95.1 97.5 97.6 97.6 83.8 59.4 69.5 80.4 90.2 85.0
DDCNN Only 93.4 97.9 95.7 96.7 13.2 20.7 16.1 87.2 87.7 87.5
DDCNN Only (without Concat) 85.9 90.2 95.9 93.0 3.9 3.5 3.7 82.4 46.3 59.2
Acharya [1] 71.3 73.3 95.0 82.6 6.3 2.3 3.4 90.8 28.2 43.5
De Chazal [6] 81.9 86.9 99.2 92.6 75.9 38.5 51.1 77.7 81.9 80.0
Ye [14] 86.4 88.5 97.5 92.8 60.8 52.3 56.3 81.5 63.1 71.2
Zhang [17] 86.7 88.9 99.0 93.7 79.1 36.0 49.5 85.5 92.8 89.0
Shan [4] 93.1 98.4 95.4 96.9 29.5 38.4 33.4 70.8 85.1 77.3
Mariano [10] 78.0 78.0 99.1 87.3 76.0 41.0 53.3 83.0 88.0 85.4

Inline graphic Results in this table are presented in percentage (%), which are obtained on DS2 of MIT-BIH-AR following the same evaluation procedures.