Table 3 Performance comparison between proposed SHOSCA and other optimization algorithms, highlighting its excellence in metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for MS detection. It evidences SHOSCA’s enhanced efficiency in FS and model optimization, despite a longer CPU time, underscoring its potential as a robust tool in clinical diagnostics.
Feat Size | Acc | Prec | Rec | F1 Score | CPU Time | Avr fit | Std fit | Best fit | Worst fit | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SHO | 9.48 | 85.7882 | 83.3532 | 79.7576 | 81.3509 | 3.9979 | 0.1213 | 0.0149 | 0.0933 | 0.1514 |
HHO | 98.92 | 88.6118 | 86.2826 | 84.1212 | 85.1439 | 4.0070 | 0.1257 | 0.0238 | 0.0699 | 0.1556 |
WOA | 76 | 89.4118 | 88.0679 | 84.3636 | 86.0967 | 1.7474 | 0.1270 | 0.0237 | 0.0815 | 0.1544 |
SCA | 46.48 | 89.9294 | 89.3919 | 84.1212 | 86.6184 | 3.1534 | 0.1124 | 0.0145 | 0.0825 | 0.1401 |
Proposed SHOSCA | 63.76 | 91.2471 | 90.7619 | 86.3030 | 88.4382 | 8.0064 | 0.1099 | 0.0105 | 0.0944 | 0.1295 |