ArticleScientific reports2026
Change-point detection and early warning systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
This paper presents a statistical framework for early warning change-point detection in electrical grid frequency time series. Frequency deviations outside the tolerance band of 49.85-50.15 Hz are treated as error events. A high-volatility (HV) measure is computed using a rolling-window approach and compared against a Hoeffding-bound threshold to identify significant transitions that may precede hazardous excursions. A dataset of 1250 error-event sequences collected over six months is divided into training (34%), validation (33%), and testing (33%) subsets. To improve efficiency, k-means clustering and dynamic time warping (DTW) are used to select representative training sequences, and a mapping-with-regression procedure is applied to generate warning signals. Experimental results show that the proposed method achieves 98.04% accuracy and an F1-score of 98.06%, while maintaining a false-negative rate of 1.1%. Lead-time evaluation confirms consistent early detection, and baseline comparison against deep learning approaches, demonstrates competitive performance with low computational cost.
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.