ArticleScientific reports2025
Key insights into recommended SMS spam detection datasets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Short Message Service (SMS) spam poses significant risks, including financial scams and phishing attempts. Although numerous datasets from online repositories have been utilized to address this issue, little attention has been given to evaluating their effectiveness and impact on SMS spam detection models. This study fills this gap by assessing the performance of ten SMS spam detection datasets using Decision Tree and Multinomial Naïve Bayes models. Datasets were evaluated based on accuracy and qualitative factors such as authenticity, class imbalance, feature diversity, metadata availability, and preprocessing needs. Due to the multilingual nature of the datasets, experiments were conducted with two stopword removal groups: one in English and another in the respective non-English languages. The key findings of this research have led to the recommendation of Dataset 5 for future SMS spam detection research, as evidence from the dataset's high qualitative assessment score of 3.8 out of 5.0 due to its high feature diversity, real-world complexity, and balanced class distribution, and low detection rate of 86.10% from Multinomial Naïve Bayes. Recommending a dataset that poses challenges for high model performance fosters the development of more robust and adaptable spam detection models capable of handling diverse forms of noise and ambiguity. Furthermore, selecting the dataset with the highest qualitative score enhances research quality, improves model generalizability, and mitigates risks related to bias and inconsistencies.
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.