Figure 1
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Comparative Analysis between the Different Models in healthcare anomaly detection
| Algorithm | Performance Metrics (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | recall | Specificity | F1-score | |
| GRU | 90.3% | 90.4% | 90.2% | 89.2% | 89.3% |
| RF | 91.5% | 91.34% | 91.48% | 91.35% | 91.6% |
| DT | 92.4% | 93.7% | 93.0% | 93.2% | 93.0% |
| SVM | 89.0% | 89.9% | 89.78% | 89.68% | 90% |
| PROPOSED MODEL | 99% | 98.9% | 98.85 | 99.1% | 99% |
Performance Metrices
| Performance Metrics | Mathematical Expression |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | |
| Recall | |
| Specificity | |
| Precision | |
| F1-Score |