ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Review of Cybersecurity Issues in Smart Meter-Based Energy Trading.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smart meters increasingly operate as grid-edge sensing and communication nodes, extending their role beyond conventional digital billing by generating records for local energy trading. In such settings, smart meter-derived records may support coordination, participant interaction, validation, billing, and settlement across different trading architectures. Once these records leave the metering edge, their security and privacy risks depend on how they are routed, reused, protected, and interpreted across centralized, transactive, and peer-to-peer trading workflows. In this review, we examine smart meter-based energy trading through a record-centric and framework-oriented lens. We first clarify the role of smart meters and smart meter-derived records, then compare three representative trading frameworks in terms of data-path structure, coordination pattern, trust organization, and validation or settlement positioning. Building on the comparison, we identify three lifecycle-based layers of issues: record integrity and temporal consistency, insecure transmission and interface access security, and confidentiality and privacy exposure. We also review existing mitigation mechanisms and remaining limitations for each issue layer. We conclude that future work should prioritize lifecycle-wide record governance, temporal continuity, privacy-accountability co-design, and deployable protection across hybrid trading environments.
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.