## 3 Results
### Loo  
Table 3 reports the performance measured using the LOO validation method on the CHB-MIT data set. The average values of ACC, SEN, and SPE in all patients were 49.55%, 55.56%, and 43.54%, respectively, representing a dramatic decrease compared with the RCV validation method. The results indicate that chb07 achieved the highest ACC (57.64%) and SEN (79.31%) among all patients, while chb12 had the highest SPE (51.53%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Patient Number** & **Gender** & **Total Seizures** & **ACC (\%)** & **SEN (\%)** & **SPE (\%)** \\ \hline chb01 & f & 3 & **91.33** & **100.00** & 0.00 \\ chb04 & m & 3 & 68.85 & 66.59 & 71.29 \\ chb05 & f & 3 & 72.18 & 33.28 & 89.38 \\ chb06 & f & 5 & 81.81 & 60.05 & 97.37 \\ chb07 & f & 2 & 75.95 & 49.90 & **100.00** \\ chb12 & f & 4 & 86.05 & 75.08 & **100.00** \\ chb15 & m & 6 & 76.53 & 80.73 & 67.57 \\ chb24 & - & 2 & 77.32 & 50.20 & **100.00** \\  & & **Average** & **78.75** & **64.48** & **78.20** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: RCV results for the CHB-MIT data set. Bold format highlights maximum values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Patient Number** & **Gender** & **Total Seizures** & **ACC (\%)** & **SEN (\%)** & **SPE (\%)** \\ \hline p1 & m & 10 & 82.90 & 68.99 & **100.00** \\ p2 & f & 3 & 85.75 & 66.61 & **100.00** \\ p3 & m & 2 & 79.49 & 49.91 & **100.00** \\ p4 & f & 6 & 85.92 & **83.40** & 88.82 \\ p5 & f & 3 & 84.20 & 62.08 & **100.00** \\ p6 & f & 4 & 80.36 & 69.19 & **100.00** \\ p7 & f & 5 & 76.95 & 79.99 & 72.39 \\ p8 & m & 3 & **86.23** & 66.68 & **100.00** \\ p9 & m & 2 & 81.77 & 49.97 & **100.00** \\ p10 & f & 2 & 73.24 & 49.80 & **100.00** \\  & & **Average** & **81.68** & **64.66** & **96.12** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: RCV results for our data set. Bold format highlights maximum values. Figure 3: Average performance computed using the RCV validation method on the two data sets. The bar chart displays the average performance metrics and the standard error of the mean. The performance measured using LOO validation in our data set is shown in Table 4. In addition, in this case, we observed a significant drop in performance, with average metric values of 50.93%, 48.62%, and 54.58% for ACC, SEN, and SPE, respectively. The highest values were obtained in the same patient p5, with 79.20% for ACC, 77.79% for SEN, and 80.09% for SPE. The comparison of performance metrics between the two data sets using the LOO validation method is reported in Figure 4. Similar to the RCV set-up, in this case, we observed only minor differences between the data sets, with slight variations mainly in SEN (6.94%) and SPE (11.04%). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Patient Number** & **Gender** & **Total Seizure** & **ACC (\%)** & **SEN (\%)** & **SPE (\%)** \\ \hline p1 & m & 10 & 44.93 & 52.80 & 36.26 \\ p2 & f & 3 & 43.09 & 59.81 & 32.00 \\ p3 & m & 2 & 56.02 & 52.78 & 58.04 \\ p4 & f & 6 & 37.64 & 51.30 & 24.08 \\ p5 & f & 3 & **79.20** & **77.79** & **80.09** \\ p6 & f & 4 & 59.57 & 48.21 & 77.61 \\ p7 & f & 5 & 54.27 & 44.22 & 67.34 \\ p8 & m & 3 & 50.41 & 20.56 & 68.93 \\ p9 & m & 2 & 35.48 & 59.31 & 23.32 \\ p10 & f & 2 & 48.68 & 19.44 & 78.07 \\  & & **Average** & **50.93** & **48.62** & **54.58** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: LOO validation method’s results on our data set. Bold format highlights maximum values. Figure 4: The results of the LOO validation method on the CHB-MIT data set and our data set to classify interictal and preictal phases are indicated. The bar chart displays the average performance metrics and the standard error of the mean.