Table 7 Classification performance comparison of the proposed method with other methods following AAMI standard
Method | N (%) | S (SVEB) (%) | V (VEB) (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Se | PP | Se | PP | Se | PP |
De Chazal [1] | 86.9 | 99.2 | 75.9 | 38.5 | 77.7 | 81.9 |
Llamedo [11] | 77.6 | 99.5 | 76.5 | 41.3 | 82.9 | 88.0 |
Mar [19] | 89.6 | 99.1 | 83.2 | 33.5 | 86.8 | 75.9 |
de Lannoy [20] | 80.0 | - | 88.1 | - | 78.5 | - |
Doquire [21] | 75.9 | - | 82.6 | - | 85.1 | - |
de Lannoy [22] | 79.8 | - | 92.6 | - | 85.1 | - |
Zhang [23] | 88.9 | 99.0 | 79.1 | 36.0 | 85.5 | 92.8 |
Park [24] | 86.3 | - | 82.6 | - | 80.9 | - |
Proposed method | 99.2 | 95.2 | 91.1 | 42.2 | 93.9 | 90.9 |