Evidence Hub

Blockchain-Based Fraud Detection: A Comparative Systematic Literature Review of Federated Learning and Machine Learning Approaches

Halima Farrukh, Sidra Zafar, Zia Ul Rehman, Asghar Ali Shah, Nizal Alshammry

Electronics, 2025

7 citations

Abstract

This systematic literature review uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to assess progress in blockchain-based Federated learning (FL) and Machine Learning (ML) for detecting financial fraud over the last five years (2020–2025). An initial pool of 29,274 records identified across IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and ScienceDirect yielded 1585 peer-reviewed studies that met the inclusion criteria. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. The examined papers were classified according to algorithm type, fraud types, and evaluation measures. Credit card fraud and cryptocurrency fraud dominated the literature, with supervised learning (e.g., XGBoost, 95% accuracy) and federated learning (e.g., FedAvg, 91% accuracy) emerging as dominant methodologies. Centralized ML outperforms FL in latency but poses privacy risks. FL–blockchain hybrids reduce false positives. While precision, recall, and F1-score are commonly used, few studies use cost-sensitive criteria. Future research should prioritize adaptive FL aggregation, privacy-preserving ML, and cross-industry collaboration.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free