Table 6.
Comparison of without fusion and fusion methods with the proposed LMPL classifier in Experiment 1: Normal, COVID-19, and typical viral.
| Method | Performance Metrics (%) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (Recall) | Precision (PPV) | F1-score | Accuracy | Average Rank | ||
| Without Fusion | preRelu | 98.64 (8) | 98.81 (8) | 98.72 (8) | 98.52 (8) | 8.0 |
| postRelu | 98.87 (6) | 99.08 (6) | 98.97 (7) | 98.81 (7) | 6.5 | |
| Concat | Classical | 99.22 (4) | 99.33 (4) | 99.28 (4) | 99.13 (4) | 4.0 |
| DCA | 98.86 (7) | 99.08 (6) | 98.99 (6) | 98.87 (6) | 6.3 | |
| CCA | 99.37 (2) | 99.48 (1) | 99.42 (2) | 99.32 (2) | 1.8 | |
| Sum | Classical | 99.27 (3) | 99.38 (3) | 99.33 (3) | 99.20 (3) | 3.0 |
| DCA | 98.91 (5) | 99.18 (5) | 99.04 (5) | 99.00 (5) | 5.0 | |
| CCA | 99.42 (1) | 99.47 (2) | 99.45 (1) | 99.39 (1) | 1.3 | |
*Bold numbers indicate the best performance.