Potential of hybrid adaptive filtering in inflammatory lesion detection from capsule endoscopy images

Table 1 Best ACC values for both individual and combined channel cases

Channel	Severity scenario
	Mild	Severe	Total
Y	71.3% (R-LFF-FV5)	91.5% (R-LFF-FV5)	85.7% (R-EFF-FV5)
Cb	77.8%(NR-LFF-FV4)	90.3 %(R-LFF-FV5)	88.0% (R-LFF-FV5)
Cr	81.2%(NR-LFF-FV3)	93.8% (R-LFF-FV5)	90.5% (R-LFF-FV5)
YCbCr	79.0% (R-LFF-FV5)	93.2% (R-EFF-FV3)	88.3% (R-LFF-FV5)

The format (X-Y-Z) corresponds to (R/NR-case - FF - FV type). The best ACC value for each severity scenario is formatted in bold.

Table 2 Best ACC/SENS/SPEC/PRES for HAF-DLac vs other approaches[6,8,17]

Methodology	Severity scenario
	Mild	Severe	Total
HAF-DLac	81.2%/76.6%/85.8%/84.3%78.8/73.2/84.4/82.41	93.8%/95.2%/92.4%/92.6%	90.5%/91.8%/89.2%/89.5%
CurvLac	69.8%/64.3%/75.3%/72.2%	90.4%/92.5%/88.3%/88.8%	84.5%/87.1%/81.9%/82.8%
CurvLBP	73.4%/67.2%/79.6%/76.7%	89.6%/91.9%/87.3%/87.9%	81.7%/83.2%/80.2%/80.8%
ECT	71.8%/65.9%/77.7%/74.7%	91.2%/92.8%/89.6%/89.9%	85.6%/87.5%/83.7%/84.3%

¹These values correspond to R-case FV5^DLac.

Table 3 Classification results on CaEn[38] and KID[39-41] open wireless capsule endoscopy databases

Classification measures	CaEn database				KID database
	HAF-DLac	CurvLac	CurvLBP	ECT	HAF-DLac	CurvLac	CurvLBP	ECT
ACC	89.3%	75.0%	75.0%	82.1%	85.1%	74.3%	78.4%	75.7%
SENS	90.9%	77.3%	77.3%	81.8%	85.7%	57.1%	71.4%	64.3%
SPEC	83.3%	66.7%	66.7%	83.3%	85.0%	78.3%	80.0%	78.3%
PREC	95.2%	89.5%	89.5%	94.7%	57.1%	38.1%	45.5%	40.9%

Table 4 Robustness study for HAF-DLac with respect to genetic algorithms parameters

Parameter	IP		Generations		P0→1		P1→0
(%) change	20	-20	20	-20	20	-20	20	-20
δ (SENS)	0.27%	0.64%	0.54%	0.68%	0.14%	0.08%	0.21%	0.17%
δ (SPEC)	0.41%	0.87%	0.81%	0.96%	0.17%	0.11%	0.11%	0.09%