# MSMP-Net: A Multi-Scale Neural Network for End-to-End Monkeypox Virus Skin Lesion Classification
## 4 Experiments
### Experimental Results and Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Level** & **Accuracy (\%)** & **Precision (\%)** & **Recall (\%)** & **F1 (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{MSMP-Net} & one & 75.59 \(\pm\) 4.38 & 77.72 \(\pm\) 4.52 & 75.59 \(\pm\) 4.38 & 73.77 \(\pm\) 4.97 \\  & two & 77.94 \(\pm\) 4.64 & 80.74 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 77.94 \(\pm\) 4.64 & 78.00 \(\pm\) 4.74 \\  & three & 85.03 \(\pm\) 4.21 & 85.42 \(\pm\) 4.37 & 85.03 \(\pm\) 4.21 & 84.45 \(\pm\) 4.49 \\  & four & 83.97 \(\pm\) 2.54 & 84.87 \(\pm\) 3.29 & 83.97 \(\pm\) 2.54 & 83.30 \(\pm\) 2.84 \\  & two, one & 81.14 \(\pm\) 4.72 & 82.15 \(\pm\) 4.68 & 81.14 \(\pm\) 4.72 & 80.24 \(\pm\) 5.60 \\  & three, one & 84.36 \(\pm\) 2.91 & 84.76 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 84.36 \(\pm\) 2.91 & 84.00 \(\pm\) 2.93 \\  & three, two & 82.44 \(\pm\) 5.17 & 83.44 \(\pm\) 5.06 & 82.44 \(\pm\) 5.17 & 81.76 \(\pm\) 5.82 \\  & three, four & 86.14 \(\pm\) 5.04 & 86.61 \(\pm\) 4.95 & 86.14 \(\pm\) 5.04 & 85.56 \(\pm\) 5.37 \\  & one, two, three & 84.91 \(\pm\) 3.34 & 86.17 \(\pm\) 3.10 & 84.91 \(\pm\) 3.34 & 84.04 \(\pm\) 3.73 \\  & two, three, four & 86.82 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 85.55 \(\pm\) 4.78 & 86.82 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 86.47 \(\pm\) 3.87 \\  & one, two, three, four & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 87.59 \(\pm\) 3.37 & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 86.58 \(\pm\) 3.66 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Ablation experiment comparison. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Batch Size** & **Accuracy (\%)** & **Precision (\%)** & **Recall (\%)** & **F1 (\%)** \\ \hline
4 & 84.61 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 85.51 \(\pm\) 2.02 & 84.61 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 84.35 \(\pm\) 2.19 \\
8 & 85.55 \(\pm\) 3.79 & 86.14 \(\pm\) 3.17 & 85.55 \(\pm\) 3.79 & 84.74 \(\pm\) 4.27 \\
16 & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 87.59 \(\pm\) 3.37 & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 86.58 \(\pm\) 3.66 \\
32 & 86.40 \(\pm\) 4.03 & 86.32 \(\pm\) 4.39 & 86.40 \(\pm\) 4.03 & 86.04 \(\pm\) 4.33 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Classification results for different batch sizes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Authors** & **Number of Class** & **Accuracy (\%)** & **Precision (\%)** & **Recall (\%)** & **F1 (\%)** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [7] & 2 & 82.96 \(\pm\) 4.57 & 87.00 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 83.00 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 84.00 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ [PERSON] et al. [9] & 2 & 91.11 & 90 & 90 & 90 \\ [PERSON] et al. [10] & 2 & 97.3 & 97 & 97 & 97 \\ [PERSON] et al. [13] & 2 & 98.8 & \# & \# & \# \\ [PERSON] et al. [15] & 2 & 96.08 & \# & \# & 99.83 \\ [PERSON] et al. [16] & 2 & 99.49 & 100 & 99.43 & 99.49 \\ [PERSON] et al. [19] & 2 & 93 & 93 & 91 & 92 \\ [PERSON] et al. [17] & 2 & 83 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 88 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 83 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 83 \(\pm\) 0.85 \\ [PERSON] et al. [18] & 2 & 98.16 & 99 & 96 & 98 \\ [PERSON] et al. [8] & 4 & 87.13 & 85.44 & 85.47 & 85.40 \\ [PERSON] et al. [14] & 4 & 97.61 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 97.60 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 97.61 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 97.60 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ [PERSON] et al. [11] & 6 & 85.78 & 86.92 & 82.46 & 84.20 \\ [PERSON] et al. [25] & 6 & 81.70 \(\pm\) 5.39 & 83.00 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 79.00 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 80.00 \(\pm\) 0.06 \\ Proposed method & 6 & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 87.59 \(\pm\) 3.37 & 87.03 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 86.58 \(\pm\) 3.66 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Comparison with previous works (# indicate no value).