## 4 Performance Evaluation and Comparison
### Comparison between Proposed and Related Work
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Work** & **Method** & **Feature Extraction** & **Dataset (Samples)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Cross** \\ **Validation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Class Labels** \\ **S\({}_{\text{c}}\) **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **S\({}_{\text{p}}\)**(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Acc (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
[10] & Binary Classification & \begin{tabular}{c} \\ using modified \\ auto-regressive model \\ and linear kernel \\ SVM \\ \end{tabular} & Mean and standard & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Healthy (1800), \\ appendicitis (630), \\ acute appendicitis (970), \\ prediction error \\ \end{tabular} & 10-fold &
\begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 1: appendicitis; \\ Class 2: acute appendicitis; \\ Class 3: duodenitis; \\ pancreatitis (820) \\ \end{tabular} & 81.3 & 80.3 & 80.8 \\ \hline
[11] & Binary Classification & \begin{tabular}{c} peak systolic velocity; \\ reverse velocity; peak \\ diastolic velocity; end \\ using RBF SVM \\ and duration of systole; and duration of systole; \\ diastole and duration of diastole \\ diastole \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Peak systolic velocity; \\ and \\ peak (1800), \\ acute appendicitis (970), \\ duodenitis (1380) and \\ pancreatitis (820) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Healthy (1800), \\ \\ 10-fold \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 1: appendicitis; \\ Class 2: acute appendicitis; \\ Class 3: duodenitis; \\ Class 4: pancreatitis \\ \end{tabular} & 81.7 & 82.9 & 82.3 \\ \hline
[32] & A recursive cluster elimination based & \begin{tabular}{c} spatial features \\ obtained from a \\ bi-modal Gaussian \\ SVM \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Healthy (1800), \\ obtained from a \\ bi-modal Gaussian \\ model \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 1: appendicitis; \\ acute appendicitis (970), \\ duodenitis (1380) and \\ pancreatitis (820) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 2: acute appendicitis; \\ Class 3: duodenitis; \\ Class 4: pancreatitis \\ \end{tabular} & 84.7 & 84.1 & 84.4 \\ \hline
[14] & RBF SVM & \begin{tabular}{c} Periodic and \\ non-periodic feature \\ extension \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Healthy (1800), \\ appendicitis (630), \\ acute appendicitis (970), \\ duodenitis (1380) and \\ pancreatitis (820) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 1: appendicitis; \\ Class 2: acute appendicitis; \\ Class 3: duodenitis; \\ Class 4: pancreatitis \\ \end{tabular} & 85.3 & 86.1 & 85.7 \\ \hline Our work & \begin{tabular}{c} Multinomial \\ Classification using \\ customized kernel \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Cross-correlation and \\ convolution \\ coefficients \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Healthy (1800), \\ appendicitis (630), \\ acute appendicitis (970), \\ duodenitis (1380) and \\ pancreatitis (820) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Class 0: healthy; \\ Class 1: appendicitis; \\ Class 2: acute appendicitis; \\ Class 3: duodenitis; \\ Class 4: pancreatitis \\ \end{tabular} & 92.0 & 91.2 & 91.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Matched comparison between proposed and related work [10, 11, 32].