ArticleScientific reports2026
Supervised machine learning intrusion detection review and multi-criteria evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intrusion detection system (IDS) that uses a machine learning (ML) algorithm recognizes attack flows from normal ones using supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised techniques. Supervised ML (SML) IDS achieved the best detection rate when historical data was available. Therefore, various SML-IDS techniques have been proposed, combining classification algorithms with preprocessing and normalization steps. This research has two aims (1) to review the components of the SML-IDS and (2) to evaluate the alternative techniques using a multi-criteria decision-making approach with reference to positive and negative ideal alternatives. The review focuses on the algorithms, datasets, and metrics used with the SML-IDS. On the other hand, the proposed evaluation framework uses the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and employs various evaluators’ preferences. Initially, the algorithms and the datasets are gathered, and then the evaluation criteria and their types are identified, e.g., cost vs. benefit. The weights for these criteria are initialized next, taking various preferences into account. The alternative algorithms are then evaluated, and their results are conveyed and ranked based on their distances to the ideal alternatives with references to the stored initialized weights. Three datasets are used in the evaluation process: KDD, NSL-KDD, and CICIDS2017. The results indicate that, within the experimental setup and the utilized datasets, tree-based methods (Random Tree, C4.5, and Random Forest) frequently achieved top rankings across multiple evaluator preferences. Naïve Bayes classifiers performed consistently worse across the experiments, likely reflecting their sensitivity to feature dependencies and high-dimensional distributions in the selected datasets.
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.