Table 8.

Comparison of the proposed framework with existing methods in the literature on the SARS-COV-2 dataset [54].

Method	Accuracy(%)	Specificity(%)	Precision(%)	Sensitivity(%)	F1-Score(%)
Yazdani et al. [68]	–	96.20	–	85.00	90.00
Silva et al. [52]	87.60	–	–	–	86.19
Angelov et al. [4]	88.60	–	89.70	88.60	89.15
Wang et al. [64]	90.83	–	95.75	85.89	90.87
Panwar et al. [44]	94.04	95.86	95.00	94.00	94.50
Sen et al. [49]	95.32	–	95.30	95.30	95.30
Jaiswal et al. [25]	96.25	96.21	96.29	96.29	96.29
Halder et al. [17]	97.00	95.00	95.00	98.00	97.00
Horry et al. [21]	97.40	–	99.10	95.50	97.30
Kundu et al. [30]	97.81	–	97.77	97.81	97.77
Pathak et al. [45]	98.37	–	98.74	98.87	98.14
Biswas et al. [8]	98.79	–	98.79	98.79	98.79
Banerjee et al. [7]	98.85	–	–	–	–
Proposed Method	98.93	98.93	98.93	98.93	98.93