ArticleScientific reports2025
Harnessing feature pruning with optimal deep learning based DDoS cyberattack detection on IoT environment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- APATCP: programmable multi-controller framework for real-time detection and mitigation of complex TCP flooding attacks in SD-IoT networks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gentle-Sketch: a high-performance and compact invertible sketch for top-K estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- SFARP: a multi-layered real-time security framework for hybrid ARP and DDoS attack defense in SD-IoT networks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- CyberDetect MLP a big data enabled optimized deep learning framework for scalable cyberattack detection in IoT environments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven cybersecurity system for internet of things using self-attention deep learning and metaheuristic algorithms.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The swift development of the Internet of Things (IoT) devices has created a pressing need for effective cybersecurity measures. They are vulnerable to different cyber threats that can compromise the functionality and security of urban systems. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks are among IoT networks' most challenging and destructive cyber threats. With the rapid growth in IoT devices and users, the vulnerability of IoT devices to such attacks has enhanced significantly, making DDoS attacks a predominant threat. This work introduces several approaches for effectively detecting IoT-based DDoS threats. Classical machine learning (ML) techniques mostly face difficulty in managing real-world traffic characteristics effectually, making them less appropriate for detecting DDoS attacks. In contrast, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based methods have proven more effective in detecting cyber-attacks than conventional approaches. This manuscript proposes an effective Feature Pruning with Optimal Deep Learning-based DDoS Attack Detection (FPODL-DDoSAD) technique in the IoT framework. The FPODL-DDoSAD technique initially uses a min-max scalar for the data scaling into the standard layout. Besides, the feature pruning process is performed using an improved pelican optimization algorithm (IPOA), which enables the choice of an optimal subset of features. Meanwhile, DDoS attacks are recognized using a sparse denoising autoencoder (SDAE) model. Furthermore, the parameter tuning of the SDAE classifier is accomplished by utilizing the Fish Migration Optimizer (FMO) technique. The experimental values of the FPODL-DDoSAD approach are assessed on the benchmark BoT-IoT dataset. The comparison study of the FPODL-DDoSAD method demonstrates a superior accuracy value of 99.80% over existing techniques.
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.