Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989436›Full record

ReviewPeerJ. Computer science2025

A literature survey of shapelet quality measures for time series classification.

Teng Li, Xiaodong Guo, Cun Ji

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Teng LiShandong University, Jinan, China.
Xiaodong GuoShandong University, Jinan, China.
Cun JiShandong Normal University, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid development of the Internet of Things, time series classification (TSC) has gained significant attention from researchers due to its applications in various real-world fields, including electroencephalogram/electrocardiogram classification, emotion recognition, and error message detection. To improve classification performance, numerous TSC methods have been proposed in recent years. Among these, shapelet-based TSC methods are particularly notable for their intuitive interpretability. A critical task within these methods is evaluating the quality of candidate shapelets. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the state-of-the-art measures for assessing shapelet quality. To present a structured overview, we begin by proposing a taxonomy of these measures, followed by a detailed description of each one. We then discuss these measures, highlighting the challenges faced by current research and offering suggestions for future directions. Finally, we summarize the findings of this survey. We hope that this work will serve as a valuable resource for researchers in the field.

Indexed as

ClassificationData miningQuality measuresShapeletTime series

Identifiers

PMID40989436
PMCPMC12453792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.