Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42507996›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Mapping Machine Learning-Driven Cybersecurity Solutions in Health Care: Scoping Literature Review.

Kunal Rajput, Sharukh Zuberi, Mireille Elhajj, Washington Ochieng, Ara Darzi, Saira Ghafur

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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.

Kunal RajputDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Faculty Building, South Kensington Campus, London, England, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom, 44 02075895111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-1273
Sharukh ZuberiDepartment of Surgery, The Royal Free Hospital, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1680-8373
Mireille ElhajjDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8946-5992
Washington OchiengDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6762-8746
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Faculty Building, South Kensington Campus, London, England, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom, 44 02075895111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7989
Saira GhafurDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Faculty Building, South Kensington Campus, London, England, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom, 44 02075895111.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4487-6904

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health care systems face escalating cyberattacks, including the UK Synnovis ransomware attack, which halted pathology services for 14 weeks; the Ascension Health breach affecting 5.6 million patients; and the Change Healthcare breach costing US $2.5 billion. Conventional cybersecurity measures in health care remain reactive and inadequate against evolving threats. Machine learning (ML) offers adaptive, predictive, real-time cyber defense; yet, there is limited clarity on how ML tools are applied across cybersecurity domains, their real-world effectiveness, and where gaps remain. Objective: This study aims to map ML applications in health care cybersecurity against the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0, summarize ML performance, and identify research gaps and implementation considerations. Methods: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted on July 30, 2025, for studies between 2019 and 2025. Eligible studies applied ML-based approaches to organizational-level cybersecurity in health care settings, with outcomes related to data privacy or cybersecurity strengthening. Studies on smart devices, blockchain, or those lacking empirical data were excluded. Title and abstract and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 (KR and SZ) reviewers following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were synthesized narratively and mapped against the 6 National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0 functions (Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover, and Govern). Results: From 10,348 articles identified, 45 studies across 18 countries were included, applying 80 ML models. Most studies addressed "Protect" (n=22, 48.9%), encompassing federated learning, homomorphic encryption, and deidentification pipelines. "Detect" (n=13, 28.9%) covered intrusion detection and anomaly-based threat detection. "Identify" (n=8, 17.8%) addressed risk assessment and vulnerability prediction. Only 2 studies addressed "Respond," and none addressed "Recover" or "Govern." Classical ML, deep learning, and natural language processing predominated, with intrusion detection being the most common application (n=29). Despite strong controlled performance, only one study demonstrated real-world deployment; most rely on synthetic or outdated benchmark datasets and inconsistent reporting metrics. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to map ML-driven cybersecurity solutions against all six National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0 functions, offering a structured, policy-relevant evidence base. ML applications remain concentrated in preincident functions, with gaps in response, recovery, and governance. This highlights systematic blind spots and priorities for researchers and implementers. The evidence supports a phased implementation approach: beginning with detection systems, where evidence is most established and integration is most feasible, progressing to privacy-preserving architectures, for which the literature currently offers no guidance. Implementation requires sustained investment in infrastructure, representative datasets, explainable AI, and real-world validation. Limitations include language bias, methodological heterogeneity, and exclusion of medical devices and proprietary solutions.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityDelivery of Health CareMachine LearningHumansartificial intelligencecybersecuritydata protectiondigital healthhealthcare systemsintrusion detectionmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42507996
PMCPMC13405368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.