| Literature DB >> 35340260 |
Ahmed Elhadad1, Fulayjan Alanazi2, Ahmed I Taloba1, Amr Abozeid1.
Abstract
A new computing paradigm that has been growing in computing systems is fog computing. In the healthcare industry, Internet of Things (IoT) driven fog computing is being developed to speed up the services for the general public and save billions of lives. This new computing platform, based on the fog computing paradigm, may reduce latency when transmitting and communicating signals with faraway servers, allowing medical services to be delivered more quickly in both spatial and temporal dimensions. One of the necessary qualities of computing systems that can enable the completion of healthcare operations is latency reduction. Fog computing can provide reduced latency when compared to cloud computing due to the use of only low-end computers, mobile phones, and personal devices in fog computing. In this paper, a new framework for healthcare monitoring for managing real-time notification based on fog computing has been proposed. The proposed system monitors the patient's body temperature, heart rate, and blood pressure values obtained from the sensors that are embedded into a wearable device and notifies the doctors or caregivers in real time if there occur any contradictions in the normal threshold value using the machine learning algorithms. The notification can also be set for the patients to alert them about the periodical medications or diet to be maintained by the patients. The cloud layer stores the big data into the cloud for future references for the hospitals and the researchers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35340260 PMCID: PMC8941505 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5337733
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Fog distributions to end-users by cloud.
Figure 2Various layers of fog computing.
Figure 3Architecture of the fog-based health monitoring framework.
Figure 4Watermarking and encryption process.
Algorithm 1Predicting patient health status and notifying the authorities.
Figure 5Flow diagram for the proposed system.
Maximum length of recording.
| Sample range (kHz) | Channels | Duration (hrs) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 59.73 |
| 550 | 6 | 120.53 |
| 1 | 12 | 30.91 |
| 550 | 12 | 15.10 |
Maximum operation lifetime.
| Operation | Channels | Sampling rate (kHz) | Device lifetime (hrs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time data transfer | 12 | 1 | 7.51 |
| Non-real-time data transfer | 12 | 1 | 19.62 |
ECG trace parameters.
| Channels | Sampling rate (kHz) | Total size (KB) |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 550 | 376.525 |
| 6 | 1 | 735.4 |
| 12 | 550 | 1.506 |
| 12 | 1 | 735.4 |
Direct transmission of an ECG trace.
| Channels | Sample rate (kHz) | Average throughput (kbps) | Storing memory |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 550 | 11.620 | Yes |
| 6 | 550 | 15.379 | No |
| 6 | 1 | 22.929 | Yes |
| 6 | 1 | 27.083 | No |
| 12 | 550 | 36.844 | Yes |
| 12 | 550 | 47.544 | No |
| 12 | 1 | 76.099 | Yes |
| 12 | 1 | 97.699 | No |
ECG transmission storage.
| Channels | Sample rate (kHz) | Average throughput | Sampling |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 550 | 13.158 kbps | Yes |
| 6 | 550 | 1.566 Mbps | No |
| 12 | 1 | 78.665 kbps | Yes |
| 12 | 1 | 640.198 kbps | No |
Response time maximums and averages.
| Command type | Maximum response (ms) | Average response (ms) |
|---|---|---|
| Simple report | 49.829847 | 22.499428 |
| Completed report | 139.450269 | 107.994685 |