Table 5.
Comparison of performance with other methods.
| Method | Database | Performance |
|---|---|---|
| WPT and SVD (33) | / | SNR:22.21 dB (10 dB), 18.37 dB (5 dB) |
| VMD denoising (29) | PCGs collected clinically (Michigan) |
SNR:24.1 dB (10 dB), 19.1 dB (5 dB) |
| Ours | SNR:7.99 dB (5 dB) | |
| GSD (17) | PCGs collected clinically (Michigan) |
SNR:30.3 dB (10 dB), 35.26 dB (15 dB) |
| OMLSA and WT (34) | PCGs collected clinically (Washington) |
SNR:11.76 dB (5 dB) |
| Matched Filters, Support Vector Machine, ANN (35) | PCGs collected clinically | Se = 84–93%,Sp = 91–99% |
| Wavelet hard thresholding, iterative backward elimination, SVM (11) | PCGs collected clinically | Acc = 92.6% |
| Butterworth band-pass filter, MFCCs, CRNN (12) | The CinC challenge 2016 database | Se = 98.66%, Sp = 98.01%, Acc = 98.34% |
| WST (14), ANN | Ours | SNR:10.64 dB (10 dB), 7.56 dB (5 dB) Acc = 87.38%, Se = 93.94%, Sp = 75.68% |
| Proposed, ANN | Ours | SNR:14.91 dB (10 dB), 12.39 dB (5 dB) Acc = 92.23%, Se = 92.42%, Sp = 91.89% |