Table 6 A comparative analysis of MTECM-FOSS performance against contemporary techniques for dataset 1.
From: Fractional-order state space reconstruction: a new frontier in multivariate complex time series
Study | Method | Scenario | Acc. (%) | Sen. (%) | Spe. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gupta et al.30 | DCT, hurst exponent | Interictal vs. ictal | 96.5 | 97.2 | 95.8 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 79.7 | 78.8 | 80.6 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 74.6 | 76.0 | 73.2 | ||
Li et al.33 | MRBF-MPSO-OLS | Interictal vs. ictal | 99.3 | 99.3 | 99.3 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 97.4 | 99.4 | 95.1 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 85.7 | 92.0 | 81.2 | ||
Hadiyoso et al.31 | Wavelet sub-band energy, wavelet entropy | Interictal vs. ictal | 96 | 92 | 100 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 95 | 94 | 96 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 80 | 90 | 70 | ||
Sharma et al.32 | MMSF—OWFB | Interictal vs. ictal | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 98 | 96 | 98 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
Wijayanto et al.34 | Wavelet energy | Interictal vs. ictal | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 97.0 | 96.4 | 98.5 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 73.0 | 66.1 | 82.7 | ||
Sugondo et al.35 | SpecEn and Katz | Interictal vs. ictal | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 96 | 96 | 96 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 78 | 73.0 | 89.2 | ||
Proposed study | MTECM-FOSS | Interictal vs. ictal | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Preictal vs. ictal | 96 | 96.0 | 96.0 | ||
Interictal vs. preictal | 88 | 98.0 | 78.0 |
