Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41049469›Full record

ArticleCrime science2025

BAKE: a novel framework for iterative security design for identifying criminally-exploitable vulnerabilities in biotechnology products.

Mariam Elgabry, Darren Nesbeth, Paul Ekblom, Shane Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Crime science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mariam ElgabryDAWES Center for Future Crime at UCL, Jill Dando Institute for Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5017-7478
Darren NesbethUCL Biochemical Engineering, Bernard Katz, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
Paul EkblomDAWES Center for Future Crime at UCL, Jill Dando Institute for Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ UK.
Shane JohnsonDAWES Center for Future Crime at UCL, Jill Dando Institute for Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging "in-body" monitoring, such as via ingestible devices, promises the future of personalised health, yet discussions of crime and security implications remain of low priority. Here, we develop and deploy the scenario building of the Delphi process and the prototyping of the hackathon through a hybrid hackathon Delphi framework that we have labelled "BAKE". The aim of BAKE is to capture insight from experts regarding the risks posed by these devices; and to produce evidence for the utility of the model as a mechanism to identify at an early stage of design/development, criminally-exploitable vulnerabilities in biotechnology (bio-electronic devices), especially medical products/services. Findings from four expert groups include the identification of four crime forms (e.g., corporate exploitation, data breaches). Five secure by design principles (e.g., end-to-end encryption) and four governance mechanisms (e.g., independent body) were recognised. Four stakeholders were identified (e.g., technical, advocates for equitable treatment). Results indicate that the inclusion of non-traditional experts and early career researchers within the hackathon model can allow the identification of highly challenging threats within the cyber-physical device system. We demonstrated that hosting a hackathon with an embedded Delphi process can instigate secure by design thinking earlier in the product development life cycle of any emerging technology.

Indexed as

DelphiDesignFrameworkGovernanceHackathonMedical devicePolicySecure

Identifiers

PMID41049469
PMCPMC12491385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.