ReviewPeerJ. Computer science2025
A literature survey of shapelet quality measures for time series classification.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.