ArticleScientific reports2026
A robust machine learning framework for detecting temporal drift in financial fraud prevention.
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
Credit card fraud detection is a difficult applied machine learning problem. It combines extreme class imbalance, temporal non-stationarity, and a sharp cost gap between missed fraud and false alarms. This paper presents an end-to-end experimental framework for fraud detection on the benchmark European transaction dataset (284,807 transactions; fraud prevalence 0.173%). A strict no-data-leakage protocol is enforced throughout. The data are split chronologically into training (70%), validation (15%), and test (15%) sets, and every preprocessing step - feature scaling, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)-based feature selection, and oversampling - is fitted only on the training partition. Two domain-informed features are engineered from the raw timestamp (sinusoidal hour encoding and log-transformed amount), and SHAP analysis reduces the 33-dimensional feature space to 15 features. Six oversampling strategies - SMOTE, BorderlineSMOTE, SVMSMOTE, ADASYN, SMOTEENN, and SMOTETomek - are compared across 12 classical classifiers, 3 multilayer perceptron (MLP) architectures, a purpose-built deep neural network (FraudNet), and 7 ensemble methods, giving 85 model-sampler combinations. Decision thresholds are tuned on the validation set using the [Formula: see text]-score, and all final metrics are reported on the held-out temporal test set. To characterise temporal drift explicitly, we measure distributional shift between splits using the Population Stability Index (PSI), Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests, and Jensen-Shannon divergence on the SHAP-selected features. We also report 1000-replicate bootstrap 95% confidence intervals for the leading configurations. The MLP (128-64-32) without oversampling reaches the highest individual [Formula: see text] of 0.7722 (95% CI: [0.6712, 0.8420]). The Soft Voting ensemble attains the best Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.8060 (95% CI: [0.7045, 0.8807]) and an AUC of 0.9703. LightGBM under SMOTEENN shows the largest gain from oversampling, with [Formula: see text] rising from 0.0745 to 0.7588. ADASYN consistently underperforms, and no single oversampling method dominates across all model families. The drift analysis confirms measurable but modest distributional shift between splits. Because the dataset spans only 48 hours, this shift reflects short-horizon, mostly intra-day variation rather than the long-horizon concept drift seen in production; we therefore treat the chronological protocol as a methodological lower bound and emphasise this limit throughout. Together, these findings give practical guidance for designing production-grade fraud detection systems under strict temporal and data-integrity constraints.
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.