Table 2.
Comparing a new anomaly detection algorithm with prior methods. The algorithm’s performance in gait detection (values in parentheses indicate the STD between the different validation folds).
| Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HYAs | ||||
| FB | 71.0 | 36.3 | 77.8 | 69.5 |
| AR-iHMM | 73.2 | 40.0 | 94.6 | 68.4 |
| DCNN | 96.0 | 90.9 | 83.8 | 98.4 |
| Bidir-LSTM | 90.9 | 70.6 | 84.3 | 92.3 |
| New Anomaly Detection | 99.4 | 79.1 | 44.6 | 99.4 |
| OAs | ||||
| FB | 76.2 (2.4) | 15.4 (5.8) | 59.8 (6.3) | 77.3 (2.5) |
| AR-iHMM | 85.2 (8.1) | 27.3 (8.6) | 78.7 (17.9) | 85 (9.43) |
| DCNN | 96.2 (4.2) | 61.4 (3.4) | 69.8 (9.8) | 97.6 (4.9) |
| Bidir-LSTM | 81.7 (6.6) | 38.8 (11.9) | 81.7 (5.7) | 81.8 (7.4) |
| New Anomaly Detection | 76.2 (0.5) | 29.9 (0.5) | 67.6 (0.1) | 78.1 (0.6) |
| PD | ||||
| FB | 77.6 (5.7) | 15.2 (11.3) | 57.4 (15.6) | 57.4 (5.5) |
| AR-iHMM | 92.6 (4.7) | 38.1 (24.0) | 50 (23.3) | 95.1 (5.0) |
| DCNN | 91.7 (7.4) | 40.9 (6.0) | 72.9 (7.4) | 92.9 (9.2) |
| Bidir-LSTM | 76.6 (4.6) | 38.3 (7.1) | 88.6 (10.9) | 76.5 (6.1) |
| New Anomaly Detection | 83.3 (3.8) | 20.9 (2.3) | 74.7 (8.2) | 83.8 (5.4) |