ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Permutation-Invariant, Missing-View-Aware Multi-Perspective Recurrent Neural Network Cell for Time-Series Fusion.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Recurrent models for multi-source data must combine synchronized streams while remaining usable when sources are reordered or unavailable. Multi-perspective long short-term memory (MP-LSTM) cells update a joint memory across perspectives, but a sequential update can make the result depend on source order. We implement a generalized chain comparator and replace its perspective-wise chain with shared projections and set attention over available views. All experiments use one fixed subject-independent split of the UCI Daily and Sports Activities (DSA) dataset, with subjects 7 and 8 as the two held-out test participants. On this split, the proposed cell uses 66.0% fewer parameters and has a 41.5% shorter recorded training time than the comparator. On a fixed 720-segment, seed-0 test subset, its inference-time accuracy remains 75.14% across eight random view permutations (standard deviation (SD) 0.00 percentage points), whereas the chain comparator falls from 76.39% to a mean of 24.67%. In the 10-class task, the mean full-view accuracy across three training seeds is 3.53 percentage points lower for the proposed cell. A cyclic missing-view schedule increases seed-0 accuracy with four of five views removed from 17.47% to 41.41% in the 19-class task, while three-seed mean full-view accuracy decreases by 3.40 percentage points. These results characterize order-invariant fusion and its robustness-accuracy trade-off in this controlled case study; they do not establish generalization beyond this dataset and held-out-subject split.
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.