Table 2.
Performance evaluation of the proposed algorithm and the compared methods. Size represents the number of scans in the dataset. FPI: False Positive per Image; FPE: False Positive per Exam.
| Method | Year | Database | Size | Sensitivity | FPI | FPE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dolejsi [36] | 2009 | TIME-LIDC-ANODE | 38 | 89.60 | 12.03 | - |
| Golosio [31] | 2009 | LIDC | 484 | 71.00 | - | 4 |
| Messay [29] | 2010 | LIDC | 84 | 82.66 | - | 3 |
| Tan [30] | 2011 | LIDC | 399 | 87.50 | - | 4 |
| Stelmo [21] | 2012 | LIDC | 29 | 85.93 | 0.001 | 0.14 |
| Teramoto [54] | 2013 | LIDC | 84 | 80.00 | - | 4.2 |
| Bergtholdt [56] | 2016 | LIDC-IDRI | 243 | 85.90 | - | 2.5 |
| Wu [55] | 2017 | LIDC-IDRI | 60 | 79.23 | - | - |
| Froz [53] | 2017 | LIDC-IDRI | 833 | 91.86 | - | - |
| Saien [11] | 2018 | LIDC/LIDC-IDRI | 70 | 83.98 | 0.02 | - |
| Ours | 2019 | LIDC | 75 | 93.75 | 0.13 | 0.22 |