Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558187›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2026

A cost-sensitive random forest framework for ARP spoofing detection in Internet of Medical Things networks.

Siddhartha Singhal, Kakelli Anil Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 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

2 authors.

Siddhartha SinghalSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.
Kakelli Anil KumarSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: ARP spoofing poses a major security threat to Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) networks by enabling man-in-the-middle attacks that compromise the integrity of life-critical communications. Existing intrusion detection methods fail to simultaneously address temporal attack dynamics, unequal medical safety requirements, and explicit control of false negative rates. Methods: This study proposes the Self-Healing IoT-Optimized Random Forest (SH-IORF) framework, which integrates temporal behavioral feature engineering, validation-guided cost-sensitive learning, and medical safety-constrained threshold optimization. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent information leakage, a stratified three-way partitioning strategy consisting of training, validation, and completely held-out testing datasets was employed. Class penalty weights and operating thresholds were determined exclusively from the validation dataset. Results: Experimental evaluation on the CICIoMT2024 benchmark demonstrated that the proposed SH-IORF framework achieved 99.90% accuracy, 99.83% recall, 99.95% precision, a 0.9989 F1-score, and an AUC-ROC of 0.9996. The framework limited the false negative rate to 0.17%, satisfying the predefined medical safety constraint (FNR ≤ 0.5%), corresponding to 40 missed detections among 23,390 attack samples and 12 false alarms across 28,768 benign traffic instances. Discussion: The results demonstrate that the proposed framework provides stable and safety-oriented intrusion detection capability under heterogeneous IoMT deployment conditions while maintaining strict testing independence and robust performance under rigorous evaluation settings.

Indexed as

ARP spoofing detectioncost-sensitive learningcybersecurityInternet of Medical Things (IoMT)intrusion detection systemrandom foresttemporal feature engineering

Identifiers

PMID42558187
PMCPMC13437320

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.