Table 4. shows the quantitative results for prostate cancer classification. Similar to colorectal cancer classification, MSBP-Net-ResNet achieved accurate classifications: 84. 58 Accuracy.
In the comparative experiments, the single scale network (ResNet) was substantially inferior to MSBP-Net-ResNet; for instance 0. 03 in specificity also outperformed the fusion networks in all the evaluation metrics.
Furthermore, MSBP-Net-MobileNet was superior to the single-scale network (MobileNet); for example, 0. 09 increase in Macro F1. As it is compared to the fusion networks, MSBP-Net-MobileNet provided a substantial performance gain in the entire evaluation metrics: 2 increase in three metrics related to accuracy as well as >0. 05 increase in sensitivity.
As we observed in colorectal cancer classification, MSBP-Net-ResNet was the best performing network, achieving the best performance in all 8 evaluation metrics.
Table 4.
shows
the quantitative results for prostate cancer
classification
. Similar to colorectal cancer
classification
,
MSBP-Net-ResNet
achieved accurate
classifications
: 84. 58 Accuracy.
In the comparative experiments, the single scale
network
(
ResNet
) was
substantially
inferior to
MSBP-Net-ResNet
;
for instance
0. 03 in specificity
also
outperformed the fusion
networks
in all the evaluation metrics.
Furthermore
,
MSBP-Net-MobileNet
was superior to the single-scale
network
(
MobileNet
);
for example
, 0. 09 increase in Macro F1. As it
is compared
to the fusion
networks
,
MSBP-Net-MobileNet
provided a substantial performance gain in the entire evaluation metrics: 2 increase in three metrics related to accuracy
as well
as >0. 05 increase in sensitivity.
As we observed in colorectal cancer
classification
,
MSBP-Net-ResNet
was the best performing
network
, achieving the best performance in all 8 evaluation metrics.