Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41866349›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Supervised machine learning intrusion detection review and multi-criteria evaluation.

Ahmad Adel Abu-Shareha, Mosleh M Abualhaj, Abdelrahman Hussein, Omar Almomani, Amal Amer, Anusha Achuthan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ahmad Adel Abu-SharehaDepartment of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, 19328, Jordan. a.abushareha@ammanu.edu.jo.
Mosleh M AbualhajDepartment of Networks and Cybersecurity, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, 19328, Jordan.
Abdelrahman HusseinDepartment of Networks and Cybersecurity, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, 19328, Jordan.
Omar AlmomaniDepartment of Networks and Cybersecurity, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, 19328, Jordan.
Amal AmerDepartment of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, 19328, Jordan.
Anusha AchuthanSchool of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Gelugor, Penang, 11800, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Intrusion detection systemMulti-criteria decision makingSupervised machine learningTOPSIS

Identifiers

PMID41866349
PMCPMC13149857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.