ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Sensor-Based Cyber Risk Management in Railway Infrastructure Under the NIS2 Directive.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces a sensor-centric cybersecurity framework for railway infrastructure that extends Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) from traditional reliability evaluation into the domain of cyber-induced failures affecting data integrity, availability and authenticity. The contribution lies in bridging regulatory obligations of the NIS2 Directive with field-layer monitoring by enabling risk indicators to evolve dynamically rather than remain static documentation artefacts. The approach is demonstrated using a scenario-based dataset collected from approximately 250 trackside, rolling-stock, environmental and power-monitoring sensors deployed over a 25 km operational segment, with representative anomalies generated through controlled spoofing, replay and injection conditions. Risk was evaluated using RPN scores derived from Severity-Occurrence-Detectability scales, while anomaly-detection performance was observed through detection-latency variation, changes in RPN distribution, and qualitative responsiveness of timestamp-based alerts. Instead of presenting a fixed benchmark, the results show how evidence from real sensor streams can recalibrate O and D factors in near-real-time and reduce undetected exposure windows, enabling measurable compliance documentation aligned with NIS2 Article 21. The findings confirm that coupling FMEA with streaming telemetry creates a verifiable risk-evaluation loop and supports a transition toward continuous, evidence-driven cybersecurity governance in railway systems.
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.