# A Hybrid Watermarking Approach for DICOM Images Security
## 4 Experiment Results
### Comparative Analysis with Other Related Works  
A comparison of the proposed method with related methods separating ROI and RONI (methods of [4; 17; 18; 23]) is presented in Table 7.  
As far as robustness is concerned, our method is robust against the majority of attacks (median filtering, salt and pepper noise, average filtering, cropping left top corner, Gaussian filtering, histogram equalization, Gaussian noise, rotation, sharpening and translate attack), the method of [PERSON] et al. [18] is robust against fewer attacks (blurring, Gaussian noise, hard threshold and JPEG compression attacks), that of [PERSON] et al. [17] is only robust against compression attacks, and the method of [PERSON] et al. [23] against Gaussian noise, Median filtering, JPEG compressing, and copy attacks and not tested against other kinds of attacks.  
By comparing the SSIM values, we can see that the methods proposed by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. achieve the same average value as our.  
Regarding the PSNR, our method achieves a better value than that of [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al., but less good than those achieved by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al.  
Regarding the BER, our approach reached 0.01. The other authors did not present their BER results.  
By comparing the NC values, we can see that our method achieves a better result than that of [PERSON] et al.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Image** & **Processing Time for Embedding (s)** & **Processing Time for Extraction (s)** \\ \hline
1 & 10.7858 & 11.8910 \\
2 & 10.9878 & 11.7686 \\
3 & 10.7893 & 11.9898 \\
4 & 10.8639 & 11.9632 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Execution time for watermark embedding and extraction.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Authors** & **Purpose** & **Watermark** & **Embedding Region** & **Embedding Technique** & **Robust Against** & **SSIM (\%)** & **PSNR (dB)** & **BER (\%)** & **NC** (\%)** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., & Authentication & Message bits & ROI & Histogram & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\
2018 & Integrity & Message bits & 0 or 1 & RONI & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\
2018 & Diagnosis data & 0 or 1 & & & & & & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., [18]} & Authentication & & & & & & & & \\  & Tamper detection & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., [2016]} & Security & Secret share & ROI & DT-CWT & & & & & \\  & Authentication & Public share & RONI & LSB & & & & & \\  & Security & & & & & & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., [2011]} & Integrity & EPR & Hybrid & & & & & & \\  & Confidentiality & Doctor’s ID & & & & & & \\  & Diagnosis & Code (DIC) & ROI & LSB & & & & & \\  & Imperceptibility & The 1 st & RONI & Cohen-Daubechies- & & & & & \\  & Copyright & bit-plane of & & Fauruate (CDF) & & & & & \\  & Tamper detection & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Proposed method} & Authentication & Patient & & & & & & & \\  & Integrity & Name and & & & & & & \\  & Diagnosis & pertinent & & & & & & \\  & features & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Comparison of the proposed method with other works in literature.