Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38645797›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2023

Towards an extensive set of criteria for safety and cyber-security evaluation of cyber-physical systems.

Aleš Smrčka, Behrooz Sangchoolie, Emanuele Mingozzi, Jose Luis de la Vara, Marie Farrell, Raul Barbosa, Cem Baglum, Ugur Yayan, Salih Ergun, Alper Kanak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2023. 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

10 authors.

Aleš SmrčkaBrno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-6916
Behrooz SangchoolieRISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Borås, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9536-4269
Emanuele MingozziE.S.T.E., Ferrara, Italy.
Jose Luis de la VaraUniversidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Castile-La Mancha, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1813-398X
Marie FarrellThe University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK.
Raul BarbosaUniversidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Coimbra District, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2916-7571
Cem BaglumInovasyon Mühendislik, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Ugur YayanEskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Salih ErgunERARGE, Ergunler, Isparta, Turkey.
Alper KanakERARGE, Ergunler, Isparta, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2541-7753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Verification and validation (V&V) are complex processes combining different approaches and incorporating many different methods including many activities. System engineers regularly face the question if their V&V activities lead to better products, and having appropriate criteria at hand for evaluation of safety and cybersecurity of the systems would help to answer such a question. Additionally, when there is a demand to improve the quality of an already managed V&V process, there is a struggle over what criteria to use in order to measure the improvement. This paper presents an extensive set of criteria suitable for safety and cybersecurity evaluation of cyberphysical systems. The evaluation criteria are agreed upon by 60 researchers from 32 academic and industrial organizations jointly working in a large-scale European research project on 13 real-world use cases from the domains of automotive, railway, aerospace, agriculture, healthcare, and industrial robotics.

Indexed as

criteriacyber-physical system (CPS)cybersecurityevaluationsafetyvalidationverification

Identifiers

PMID38645797
PMCPMC11026953

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.