Table 12.
Performance comparison of recent prediction models on UCI ILPD and UCI Liver Disorders datasets. Classifiers with ’*’ represent the classifiers with the highest ACC scores in the respective paper
| Work Ref. | Classifier | Performance metrics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | P | R | F1 | S | AUC | ||
| Methods on UCI Indian Liver Patient dataset | |||||||
| Adil et al. [4] | LR | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.69 | – | – |
| Gogi and Vijayalakshmi [68] | LR* | 0.95 | – | – | – | – | 0.93 |
| Abdalrada et al. [1] | LR | 0.72 | – | 0.90 | – | 0.78 | 0.75 |
| Srivenkatesh [210] | LR* | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 0.85 | – | – |
| Kant and Ansari [112] | k-means | 0.23 | 0.94 | 0.31 | 0.46 | – | – |
| Ramana and Boddu [174] | Bagging | 0.69 | 0.44 | 0.95 | – | 0.85 | 0.70 |
| Nahar and Ara [83] | SVM | 0.73 | – | 0.96 | – | 0.96 | – |
| Babu et al. [22] | NB* | 0.56 | 0.76 | – | – | 0.95 | – |
| Lakshmi et al. [124] | C4.5 | – | – | 0.78 | – | – | – |
| Kumar and Katyal [120] | C5.0 | 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.78 | – | – | – |
| Tiwari et al. [220] | k-NN | 0.98 | – | – | – | – | 0.98 |
| Kumar and Sahu [119] | RF* | 0.79 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.87 | – |
| Methods on UCI Liver Disorders dataset | |||||||
| Chua and Tan [45] | k-NN | 0.67 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Kulkarni and Shinde [118] | ANN | 0.67 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Haque et al. [80] | ANN | 0.85 | – | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.89 | – |