Table 4.
Performance comparisons of the proposed DNN and six readers by testing on validation dataset 2.
| Evaluation Index |
Task1 | Task2 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNN | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | DNN | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | |
| Accuracy (%) | 75.2 | 69.8 | 71.3 | 64.4 | 60.9 | 62.4 | 61.4 | 91.9 | 83.7 | 78.0 | 80.5 | 82.9 | 63.4 | 67.5 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 83.7 | 83.7 | 92.7 | 94.3 | 52.0 | 85.4 | 76.4 | 81.1 | 48.6 | 91.9 | 94.6 | 45.9 | 100.0 | 59.5 |
| Specificity (%) | 62.0 | 54.4 | 38.0 | 17.7 | 74.7 | 26.6 | 38.0 | 96.5 | 98.8 | 72.1 | 74.4 | 98.8 | 47.7 | 70.9 |
| PPV (%) | 77.4 | 74.1 | 69.9 | 64.1 | 76.2 | 64.4 | 65.7 | 90.9 | 94.7 | 58.6 | 61.4 | 94.4 | 45.1 | 46.8 |
| NPV (%) | 71.0 | 68.3 | 76.9 | 66.7 | 50.0 | 53.8 | 50.8 | 92.2 | 81.7 | 95.4 | 97.0 | 81.0 | 100.0 | 80.3 |
| F1 (%) | 80.5 | 78.6 | 79.7 | 76.3 | 61.8 | 73.4 | 70.7 | 85.7 | 64.3 | 71.6 | 74.5 | 61.8 | 62.2 | 52.4 |
| F1avg (%) | 74.9 | 71.6 | 68.4 | 57.4 | 61.1 | 58.6 | 60.0 | 91.7 | 81.9 | 78.9 | 81.3 | 80.8 | 63.9 | 68.4 |
| MCC (%) | 47.1 | 40.2 | 37.9 | 19.2 | 26.5 | 14.8 | 15.5 | 80.3 | 60.3 | 58.8 | 63.5 | 58.1 | 46.4 | 28.7 |
Abbreviations and definitions: PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; MCC = Matthews correlation coefficient; R = reader.