Table 12.
Related studies comparisons
| References | Best accuracy | Other metrics |
|---|---|---|
| Pereira et al. 2015) | 78.9% | – |
| Pereira et al. 2016b) | 80.19% | – |
| Pereira et al. 2016a) | 90.39% | – |
| Pereira et al. 2018) | 95% | – |
| Senatore et al. 2019) | 72.36% | – |
| Impedovo 2019) | 98.44% | – |
| Naseer et al. 2020) | 98.28% | 85.98% precision, 67.57% sensitivity, and 76.37% specificity |
| Kamran et al. 2021) | 99.75% (CNN-TL) | – |
| Sakar et al. 2013) | 77.5% | – |
| Caliskan et al. 2017) | 86.09% | 58.27% sensitivity abd 95.39% specificity |
| Goyal et al. 2021) | 99.37% | – |
| Tuncer and Dogan 2019) | 97.62% by 1NN | 97.61% F1 |
| Zahid et al. 2020) | 99.7% | – |
| Proposed approach | 99.94% (ML) | Table 5 |
| Proposed approach | 99.75% (NewHandPD) | Table 7 |
| Proposed approach | 100% (MDVR-KCL) | Table 9 |