ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Hybrid AI Intrusion Detection: Balancing Accuracy and Efficiency.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- AI-Driven Intrusion Detection for Vehicular Networks: A Comprehensive Survey of Techniques, Datasets, Deployment Architectures, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) has transformed industries, healthcare, and smart environments, but introduces severe security threats due to resource constraints, weak protocols, and heterogeneous infrastructures. Traditional Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) fail to address critical challenges including scalability across billions of devices, interoperability among diverse protocols, real-time responsiveness under strict latency, data privacy in distributed edge networks, and high false positives in imbalanced traffic. This study provides a systematic comparative evaluation of three representative AI models, CNN-BiLSTM, Random Forest, and XGBoost for IoT intrusion detection on the NSL-KDD and UNSW-NB15 datasets. The analysis quantifies the achievable detection performance and inference latency of each approach, revealing a clear accuracy-latency trade-off that can guide practical model selection: CNN-BiLSTM offers the highest detection capability (F1 up to 0.986) at the cost of higher computational overhead, whereas XGBoost and Random Forest deliver competitive accuracy with significantly lower inference latency (sub-millisecond on conventional hardware). These empirical insights support informed deployment decisions in heterogeneous IoT environments where accuracy-critical gateways and latency-critical sensors coexist.
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.