Figure 1:
Figure 2 :
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Performance metrics for the recommended approach
| Algorithms | Performance Metrics (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | Recall | Specificity | F1-score | |
| ANN | 84.3 | 86.3 | 86.5 | 86.5 | 85.3 |
| CNN | 87.2 | 87.2 | 86.6 | 86.3 | 83.2 |
| DNN | 88.5 | 88.1 | 84.3 | 88.6 | 86.3 |
| RNN | 89.9 | 90.1 | 89.74 | 88.3 | 88.2 |
| Proposed Model | 98.3 | 97.0 | 97.8 | 96.2 | 96.0 |
Performance Comparison between the recommended architecture and Traditional Model
| Metric | Proposed Framework | Existing Method (Baseline) |
|---|---|---|
| Compression Ratio | 4:1 | 3:1 |
| Encryption Time (ms) | 12 ms | 18 ms |
| PSNR (dB) | 38.5 | 34.2 |
| Accuracy (Diagnosis) | 98% | 95% |
| Bandwidth Savings (%) | 75% | 60% |
Performance measures utilized in the examination
| SL.NO | Performance Measures | Expression |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Accuracy | |
| 2 | Recall | |
| 3 | Specificity | |
| 4 | Precision | |
| 5 | F1-Score |