ArticleScientific reports2025
Non-technical loss detection in power distribution networks using machine learning.
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
Non-technical losses (NTL) in power distribution, such as illegal meter tapping, cause significant financial losses for utilities, amounting to billions annually. This study evaluates various machine learning methods for NTL detection, addressing the challenge of imbalanced electricity consumption data. Seven techniques for data balancing were employed: Adaptive Synthetic Sampling (ADASYN), Random Over Sampling, Random Under Sampling, Near Miss Under Sampling, and several variations of Synthetic Minority Over Sampling (SMOTE), including Borderline-SMOTE, SMOTE-ENN, and SMOTE-Tomek links. The model comprises two stages: first, seven classification algorithms (Decision Tree, Logistic Regression, XGBoost, Random Forest, SVM, Naïve Bayes, and KNN) were tested across diverse training-testing ratios to identify optimal performance. The second stage applied the comprehensive consumption dataset along with data balancing techniques to improve algorithm efficacy. Performance metrics-accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)-were utilized for evaluation. Results revealed that the Random Forest algorithm, when paired with Random Over Sampling at a 70 - 30% training-testing ratio, yielded the highest metrics: 98.03% accuracy, 99.02% precision, surpassing existing literature. The model achieved exceptional precision (0.990) and the highest overall performance, with rigorous statistical testing confirming all improvements were significant at the 95% confidence level.
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.