ArticlePloS one2026
Reassessing feature-based Android malware detection in a contemporary context.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- MH-1M: A 1.34 Million-Sample Multi-Feature Android Malware Dataset with Rich Metadata.Scientific data · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report the findings of a reimplementation of 18 foundational studies in feature-based machine learning for Android malware detection, published during the period 2013-2023. These studies are reevaluated on a level playing field using a contemporary Android environment and a balanced dataset of 124,000 applications. Our findings show that feature-based approaches can still achieve detection accuracies beyond 98%, despite a considerable increase in the size of the underlying Android feature sets. We observe that features derived through dynamic analysis yield only a small benefit over those derived from static analysis, and that simpler models often out-perform more complex models. We also find that API calls and opcodes are the most productive static features within our evaluation context, network traffic is the most predictive dynamic feature, and that ensemble models provide an efficient means of combining models trained on static and dynamic features. Together, these findings suggest that simple, fast machine learning approaches can still be an effective basis for malware detection, despite the increasing focus on slower, more expensive machine learning models in the literature.
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.