Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39824931›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Improved feature reduction framework for sign language recognition using autoencoders and adaptive Grey Wolf Optimization.

Rajeev Goel, Sandhya Bansal, Kavita Gupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rajeev GoelGovernment College, Naraingarh, India. rcse123@gmail.com.
Sandhya BansalCSE Department, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be) University, Mullana, India.
Kavita GuptaUniversity Institute of Computing, Chandigarh University, Punjab, India.

Funding

Department of Science & Technology, Government of Haryana HSCSIT/R&D/2022/2957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automatic Sign Language Recognition Systems (ASLR) offers smooth communication between hearing-impaired and normal-hearing individuals, enhancing educational opportunities for impaired. However, it struggles with "curse of dimensionality" due to excessive features resulting in prolonged training time and exhaustive computational demand. This paper proposes technique that integrates machine learning and swarm intelligence to effectively address this issue. The proposed technique, initially, extracts features using histrogram of gradient (HOG) approach and then reduces dimensions of extracted features using unsupervised autoencoder and subsequently refining the feature set with an improved GWO algorithm. A handcrafted artificial neural network serves as the classifier within this integrated framework, denoted as AEGWO-Net. Exhaustive experimentations were conducted on six different datasets namely ASL, ASL MNIST, ISL, ArSL, MNIST Digits, and IEEE-ISL containing gestures of different languages to demonstrate the performance of AEGWO-Net. The AEGWO-Net demonstrates superior performance improving accuracy and F1 score by 6% and 4% respectively compared to PCA-IGWO and KPCA-IGWO algorithms. Achieving high accuracy (98.40%), F1-score (96.59%), MCC (97.14%), and AUC (96.21%) indicates the robustness and generalizability of the AEGWO-Net method even with reduced dimensionality. Furthermore, a comparison between AEGWO-Net with other existing swarm intelligence techniques is also made to demonstrate its superiority.

Indexed as

Sign LanguageAutoencoderHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerParticle Swarm OptimizationAutoencoderFeature selectionGrey Wolf OptimizationSign language recognition

Identifiers

PMID39824931
PMCPMC11742416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.