| Literature DB >> 35345805 |
Sarvesh Kumar1, Mohammed Abdul Wajeed2, Rajashekhar Kunabeva3, Nripendra Dwivedi4, Prateek Singhal5, Sajjad Shaukat Jamal6, Reynah Akwafo7.
Abstract
It is a new online service paradigm that allows consumers to exchange their health data. Health information management software allows individuals to control and share their health data with other users and healthcare experts. Patient health records (PHR) may be intelligently examined to predict patient criticality in healthcare systems. Unauthorized access, privacy, security, key management, and increased keyword query search time all occur when personal health records (PHR) are moved to a third-party semitrusted server. This paper presents security measures for cloud-based personal health records (PHR). The cost of keeping health records on a hospital server grows. This is particularly true in healthcare. As a consequence, keeping PHRs in the cloud helps healthcare institutions save money on infrastructure. The proposed security solutions include an optimized rule-based fuzzy inference system (ORFIS) to determine the patient's criticality. Patients are classified into three groups (sometimes known as protective rings) based on their severity: very critical, less critical, and normal. In trials using the UCI machine learning archive, the new ORFIS outperformed existing fuzzy inference approaches in detecting the criticality of PHR. Using a graph-based access policy and anonymous authentication with a NoSQL database in a private cloud environment improves data storage and retrieval efficiency, granularity of data access, and response time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345805 PMCID: PMC8957408 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3564436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Cloud security issues.
Existing methodology comparison.
| Reference | Technique used | Research objective |
|---|---|---|
| [ | Neuro-fuzzy inference system for diagnosis of malaria | Investigation of malaria using the neuro-fuzzy system for decision-making ability based on predefined rules and learning by the backpropagation algorithm |
|
| ||
| [ | A fuzzy logic system with attribute ranking technique for risk-level classification of coronary artery heart disease (CAHD) in female diabetic patients | Fuzzy logic (Mamdani model) for risk classification of CAHD; it uses the attribute ranking technique (ART) for attribute selection |
|
| ||
| [ | CDSS (clinical decision support system): risk assessment level weighted fuzzy rules are used to predict the development of heart disease | A weighted fuzzy rule-based CDSS is presented for the diagnosis of heart disease, by automatically obtaining knowledge from the patient's clinical data |
|
| ||
| [ | A new approach for diagnosis of diabetes and prediction of cancer using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) | ANFIS is used to improve classification accuracy and to achieve better efficiency; it examines the diagnosis of cancer and diabetes by training technique based on ANFIS for the early detection of sleep disorders |
Figure 2Proposed architecture for criticality analysis and secure access.
Figure 3Protection ring formation.
Chest pain type.
| Range | Value |
|---|---|
| 1 | Typical angina (typ) |
| 2 | Atypical angina (atyp) |
| 3 | Nontypical angina pain (NT) |
| 4 | Asymptomatic (asy) |
Fuzzy values of blood pressure.
| Range | Linguistic values |
|---|---|
| <130 | Low (L) |
| 125–152 | Medium (M) |
| 140–170 | High (H) |
| 155> | Very high (VH) |
Figure 4Membership graph for blood pressure.
Fuzzy values of blood sugar.
| Range | Linguistic values |
|---|---|
| <120 | Normal (N) |
| >120 | Very high (VH) |
Figure 5Membership graph for sugar.
Fuzzy rules and methods.
| Fuzzy variables | No. of fuzzy values | Fuzzy variables | No. of fuzzy values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chest pain type | 4 | ECG | 3 |
| Blood pressure | 4 | Old peak | 3 |
| Cholesterol | 4 | Thallium scan | 3 |
| Blood sugar | 2 | Gender | 2 |
| Maximum heart rate | 3 | Age | 4 |
Figure 6Fuzzy inference system.
Figure 7Flowchart for ORFIS.
Performance of ORFIS.
| No. of rules | FIS rule search (rules) | ORFIS rule search (rules) | FIS search time (ms) | ORFIS time (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9,350 | 9,350 | 389 | 197 | 7.96 |
| 15,346 | 15,346 | 639 | 306.92 | 12.96 |
| 25,671 | 25,671 | 1,070 | 513.42 | 21.58 |
| 51,250 | 51,250 | 2,135 | 1,025 | 42.88 |
| 86,300 | 86,300 | 3,595 | 1,726 | 72.08 |
Figure 8Performance of ORFIS.
Figure 9Performance of ORFIS with existing fuzzy models.
Figure 10Comparison of ORFIS with existing classifier.
Algorithm 1Fuzzy rules.
Algorithm 2Pseudocode of attribute-based multisignature scheme.