ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimizing IoT Intrusion Detection Using Balanced Class Distribution, Feature Selection, and Ensemble Machine Learning Techniques.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequential submodular feature-sample selection for lightweight and update-efficient IoT intrusion detection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intrusion Detection in the Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques, Architectures, Datasets, and Emerging Trends.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A two-stage generative-AI fusion intrusion detection system for calibrated and reliable cloud security.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive Evolution-Inspired Algorithm for Intrusion Detection in Bioinformatics Systems.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2026Article
- An Adaptive Framework for Intrusion Detection in IoT Security Using MAML (Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning).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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) devices are leading to advancements in innovation, efficiency, and sustainability across various industries. However, as the number of connected IoT devices increases, the risk of intrusion becomes a major concern in IoT security. To prevent intrusions, it is crucial to implement intrusion detection systems (IDSs) that can detect and prevent such attacks. IDSs are a critical component of cybersecurity infrastructure. They are designed to detect and respond to malicious activities within a network or system. Traditional IDS methods rely on predefined signatures or rules to identify known threats, but these techniques may struggle to detect novel or sophisticated attacks. The implementation of IDSs with machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques has been proposed to improve IDSs' ability to detect attacks. This will enhance overall cybersecurity posture and resilience. However, ML and DL techniques face several issues that may impact the models' performance and effectiveness, such as overfitting and the effects of unimportant features on finding meaningful patterns. To ensure better performance and reliability of machine learning models in IDSs when dealing with new and unseen threats, the models need to be optimized. This can be done by addressing overfitting and implementing feature selection. In this paper, we propose a scheme to optimize IoT intrusion detection by using class balancing and feature selection for preprocessing. We evaluated the experiment on the UNSW-NB15 dataset and the NSL-KD dataset by implementing two different ensemble models: one using a support vector machine (SVM) with bagging and another using long short-term memory (LSTM) with stacking. The results of the performance and the confusion matrix show that the LSTM stacking with analysis of variance (ANOVA) feature selection model is a superior model for classifying network attacks. It has remarkable accuracies of 96.92% and 99.77% and overfitting values of 0.33% and 0.04% on the two datasets, respectively. The model's ROC is also shaped with a sharp bend, with AUC values of 0.9665 and 0.9971 for the UNSW-NB15 dataset and the NSL-KD dataset, respectively.
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.