ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Network Anomaly Intrusion Detection Based on Deep Learning Approach.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An optimized gradient boosting framework for IoT intrusion detection: a comprehensive evaluation on the CICIoT2023 dataset.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- FD-IDS: Federated Learning with Knowledge Distillation for Intrusion Detection in Non-IID IoT Environments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Highly accurate anomaly based intrusion detection through integration of the local outlier factor and convolutional neural network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhanced anomaly network intrusion detection using an improved snow ablation optimizer with dimensionality reduction and hybrid deep learning model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Research on Network Intrusion Detection Model Based on Hybrid Sampling and Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Enhancing infectious disease prediction model selection with multi-objective optimization: an empirical study.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of internet usage leads to diverse internet traffic, which may contain information about various types of internet attacks. In recent years, many researchers have applied deep learning technology to intrusion detection systems and obtained fairly strong recognition results. However, most experiments have used old datasets, so they could not reflect the latest attack information. In this paper, a current state of the CSE-CIC-IDS2018 dataset and standard evaluation metrics has been employed to evaluate the proposed mechanism. After preprocessing the dataset, six models-deep neural network (DNN), convolutional neural network (CNN), recurrent neural network (RNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), CNN + RNN and CNN + LSTM-were constructed to judge whether network traffic comprised a malicious attack. In addition, multi-classification experiments were conducted to sort traffic into benign traffic and six categories of malicious attacks: BruteForce, Denial-of-service (DoS), Web Attacks, Infiltration, Botnet, and Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS). Each model showed a high accuracy in various experiments, and their multi-class classification accuracy were above 98%. Compared with the intrusion detection system (IDS) of other papers, the proposed model effectively improves the detection performance. Moreover, the inference time for the combinations of CNN + RNN and CNN + LSTM is longer than that of the individual DNN, RNN and CNN. Therefore, the DNN, RNN and CNN are better than CNN + RNN and CNN + LSTM for considering the implementation of the algorithm in the IDS device.
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.