ArticleScientific reports2025
Intelligent approach to detecting online fraudulent trading with solution for imbalanced data in fintech forensics.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Preventing spread of the invasive spotted lanternfly via texture-based automated egg detection.Frontiers in insect science · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting online fraudulent trading in the realm of Fintech presents several challenges, primarily due to the dynamic nature of financial markets and the evolving tactics of fraudsters. Traditional machine learning algorithms trained on unbalanced datasets tend to bias towards the majority class (legitimate transactions) and may overlook minority class (fraudulent transactions) patterns. This bias can lead to poor performance in detecting fraudulent activities. The choice of sampling technique (e.g., oversampling, undersampling, SMOTE) can significantly impact model performance. However, selecting the appropriate sampling strategy requires domain knowledge and experimentation, which can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. This work utilizes Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)-based sampling to tackle class imbalance in credit card fraud detection. By generating realistic synthetic fraud samples, ABC-sampling helps the model learn fraudulent patterns more effectively without favoring non-fraudulent transactions. Inspired by the foraging behavior of bees, the process involves exploring existing fraud patterns, selecting the most relevant ones, creating synthetic fraud samples, and refining them to ensure they closely resemble real fraud cases while preserving key features that distinguish fraud from regular transactions. This method enhances fraud detection accuracy and minimizes false alarms, making the system more reliable. The suggested model employs anomaly detection algorithm to identify unusual or fraudulent trading activities in which it creates behavioral profiles for individual traders based on their historical trading activities and utilizes machine learning algorithm to cluster traders into groups based on similar behavior patterns. Then it identifies characteristic features of fraudulent traders such as sudden changes in trading volume, irregular trading hours, or trading activities inconsistent with their profile. By analyzing patterns and anomalies in traders' behavior, these approaches can effectively identify suspicious activities indicative of fraudulent behavior. Extensive performance studies demonstrate that the proposed algorithm significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods by 10% in terms of accuracy.
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.