Table 2.

Comparison of the performance of the competing algorithms in the form of AUC and AP scores.

Method	AUC	AP
CNN ($\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.748 ± 0.035	0.498 ± 0.037
NoisyAND ($\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.761 ± 0.027	0.538 ± 0.037
AttentionMIL ($\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.743 ± 0.055	0.486 ± 0.095
NoisyAND ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.845 ± 0.016	0.708 ± 0.041
AttentionMIL ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.823 ± 0.021	0.643 ± 0.048
AveragePooling ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.850 ± 0.025	0.693 ± 0.037
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y}$)	0.858 ± 0.017	0.719 ± 0.029
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{S}$)	0.852 ± 0.024	0.713 ± 0.040
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{V}$)	0.835 ± 0.024	0.693 ± 0.049
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{V}$)	0.858 ± 0.014	0.721 ± 0.035
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{S},\mathbb{V}$)	0.857 ± 0.018	0.733 ± 0.048
Proposed2Heads ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.860 ± 0.019	0.711 ± 0.046
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S}$)	0.870 ± 0.017	0.743 ± 0.037
Proposed ($\mathbb{U},\mathbb{Y},\mathbb{S},\mathbb{V}$)	0.860 ± 0.024	0.730 ± 0.047