ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Anomaly-based threat detection in smart health using machine learning.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Machine Learning-Driven Cybersecurity Solutions in Health Care: Scoping Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A Survey on Security Threats and Mitigation Mechanisms for Smart Hospitals in the 6G Era.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Enhancing healthcare information security through VAE-driven anomaly detection in EHR access patterns.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optimization of hospital resource scheduling efficiency based on dynamic weighted distance anomaly detection algorithm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in advancing population-based cancer registration.Science bulletin · 2026Review
- Discovery of data quality issues in electronic health records: profound consequences for critical care medicine applications - a systematized review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Secure Fog Computing for Remote Health Monitoring with Data Prioritisation and AI-Based Anomaly Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- SmartBuildSim: An Open-Source Synthetic-Twin Framework for Reproducible AI Benchmarking in Smart-Building Analytics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robust IoT security using isolation forest and one class SVM algorithms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Unified Deep Learning Ensemble Framework for Voice-Based Parkinson's Disease Detection and Motor Severity Prediction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Aging With Artificial Intelligence: How Technology Enhances Older Adults' Health and Independence.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025Review
- From brain scans to classifiers: A systematic review of ML-based autism diagnostic frameworks.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnomaly detection is crucial in healthcare data due to challenges associated with the integration of smart technologies and healthcare. Anomaly in electronic health record can be associated with an insider trying to access and manipulate the data. This article focuses around the anomalies under different contexts. METHODOLOGY: This research has proposed methodology to secure Electronic Health Records (EHRs) within a complex environment. We have employed a systematic approach encompassing data preprocessing, labeling, modeling, and evaluation. Anomalies are not labelled thus a mechanism is required that predicts them with greater accuracy and less false positive results. This research utilized unsupervised machine learning algorithms that includes Isolation Forest and Local Outlier Factor clustering algorithms. By calculating anomaly scores and validating clustering through metrics like the Silhouette Score and Dunn Score, we enhanced the capacity to secure sensitive healthcare data evolving digital threats. Three variations of Isolation Forest (IForest)models (SVM, Decision Tree, and Random Forest) and three variations of Local Outlier Factor (LOF) models (SVM, Decision Tree, and Random Forest) are evaluated based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 Score.
resultsIsolation Forest SVM achieves the highest accuracy of 99.21%, high sensitivity (99.75%) and specificity (99.32%), and a commendable F1 Score of 98.72%. The Isolation Forest Decision Tree also performs well with an accuracy of 98.92% and an F1 Score of 99.35%. However, the Isolation Forest Random Forest exhibits lower specificity (72.84%) than the other models.
conclusionThe experimental results reveal that Isolation Forest SVM emerges as the top performer showcasing the effectiveness of these models in anomaly detection tasks. The proposed methodology utilizing isolation forest and SVM produced better results by detecting anomalies with less false positives in this specific EHR of a hospital in North England. Furthermore the proposal is also able to identify new contextual anomalies that were not identified in the baseline methodology.
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.