Table 1.
Performance metrics (%) | Methods | 1-fold | 2-fold | 3-fold | 4-fold | 5-fold | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recall | Proposed method | 94.73 | 90.47 | 92.00 | 96.96 | 92.59 | 93.33 |
Ozturk et al. | 100 | 96.42 | 90.47 | 93.75 | 93.18 | 95.13 | |
Nasiri and Hasani | 95.20 | 95.40 | 96.70 | 81.40 | 91.40 | 92.08 | |
| |||||||
Specificity | Proposed method | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Ozturk et al. | 100 | 96.42 | 90.47 | 93.75 | 93.18 | 95.30 | |
Nasiri and Hasani | 100 | 100 | 100 | 89.90 | 100 | 99.78 | |
| |||||||
Precision | Proposed method | 99.53 | 99.05 | 99.01 | 99.46 | 99.00 | 99.21 |
Ozturk et al. | 100 | 94.52 | 98.14 | 98.57 | 98.58 | 98.03 | |
Nasiri and Hasani | 99.50 | 99.50 | 99.40 | 95.30 | 99.02 | 98.54 | |
| |||||||
F 1-score | Proposed method | 98.41 | 97.02 | 97.42 | 98.96 | 97.57 | 97.87 |
Ozturk et al. | 100 | 95.52 | 93.79 | 95.93 | 95.62 | 96.51 | |
Nasiri and Hasani | 98.50 | 98.50 | 98.20 | 92.50 | 97.30 | 97.00 | |
| |||||||
Accuracy | Proposed method | 99.20 | 98.40 | 98.40 | 99.20 | 98.40 | 98.72 |
Ozturk et al. | 100 | 97.60 | 96.80 | 97.60 | 97.60 | 98.08 | |
Nasiri and Hasani | 99.20 | 99.20 | 99.20 | 95.20 | 98.40 | 98.24 |