ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Anomaly Detection in Railway Sensor Data Environments: State-of-the-Art Methods and Empirical Performance Evaluation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensor-Based Cyber Risk Management in Railway Infrastructure Under the NIS2 Directive.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Vehicle-as-a-Sensor Approach for Urban Track Anomaly Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- MLAD: A Multi-Task Learning Framework for Anomaly Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To date, significant progress has been made in the field of railway anomaly detection using technologies such as real-time data analytics, the Internet of Things, and machine learning. As technology continues to evolve, the ability to detect and respond to anomalies in railway systems is once again in the spotlight. However, railway anomaly detection faces challenges related to the vast infrastructure, dynamic conditions, aging infrastructure, and adverse environmental conditions on the one hand, and the scale, complexity, and critical safety implications of railway systems on the other. Our study is underpinned by the three objectives. Specifically, we aim to identify time series anomaly detection methods applied to railway sensor device data, recognize the advantages and disadvantages of these methods, and evaluate their effectiveness. To address the research objectives, the first part of the study involved a systematic literature review and a series of controlled experiments. In the case of the former, we adopted well-established guidelines to structure and visualize the review. In the second part, we investigated the effectiveness of selected machine learning methods. To evaluate the predictive performance of each method, a five-fold cross-validation approach was applied to ensure the highest accuracy and generality. Based on the calculated accuracy, the results show that the top three methods are CatBoost (96%), Random Forest (91%), and XGBoost (90%), whereas the lowest accuracy is observed for One-Class Support Vector Machines (48%), Local Outlier Factor (53%), and Isolation Forest (55%). As the industry moves toward a zero-defect paradigm on a global scale, ongoing research efforts are focused on improving existing methods and developing new ones that contribute to the safety and quality of rail transportation. In this sense, there are at least four avenues for future research worth considering: testing richer data sets, hyperparameter optimization, and implementing other methods not included in the current study.
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.