| Literature DB >> 35463737 |
Abstract
Health care system is intended to enhance one's health and as a result, one's quality of life. In order to fulfil its social commitment, health care must focus on producing social profit to sustain itself. Also, due to ever increasing demand of healthcare sector, there is drastic rise in the amount of patient data that is produced and needs to be stored for long duration for clinical reference. The risk of patient data being lost due to a data centre failure can be minimized by including a fog layer into the cloud computing architecture. Furthermore, the burden of such data produced is stored on the cloud. In order to increase service quality, we introduce fog computing based on deep learning sigmoid-based neural network clustering (DLSNNC) and score-based scheduling (SBS). Fog computing begins by collecting and storing healthcare data on the cloud layer, using data collected through sensors. Deep learning sigmoid based neural network clustering and score based Scheduling approaches are used to determine entropy for each fog node in the fog layer. Sensors collect data and send it to the fog layer, while the cloud computing tier is responsible for monitoring the healthcare system. The exploratory findings show promising results in terms of end-to-end latency and network utilization. Also, the proposed system outperforms the existing techniques in terms of average delay.Entities:
Keywords: Clustering; Entropy; Fog computing; Neural network; Score-based scheduling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35463737 PMCID: PMC9020430 DOI: 10.1007/s41870-022-00922-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Inf Technol ISSN: 2511-2104
Summary of existing techniques in Fog computing
| Existing work | Quality attributes | Technique | Features | Tool used | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hussein et al. [ | Communication cost, response time | Ant colony optimization (ACO) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) | Formal model for task offloading is provided Two nature inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithms named ACO and PSO are used based on formal model Comparison is done between both algorithms | MATLAB | Results of the experiments reveal that the proposed ACO task offloading method improves IoT application response times and successfully balances workloads among fog nodes |
| Gavaber et al. [ | Bandwidth, delay | Bandwidth and delay efficient placement (BADEP), uncritical module placement (UMP) | Division of modules into two types: critical and non-critical Implementation of BADEP algorithm for critical type and UMP for non-critical type | iFogSim | Simulation results suggest that the proposed strategy reduces delay by 9 and network usage by 13 percentage |
| Vedaei et al. [ | Energy consumption, bandwidth | Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) | Real-time monitoring and notifying patient's health using ML algorithm Utilization of a fuzzy decision-making system on the fog server Training memberships and rule defining using ANFIS | Raspberry Pi Zero | The system might aid users in keeping track of their daily activities and lowering their risk of contracting the Coronavirus |
| Saidi et al. [ | Latency, energy consumption | Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm | Comparison of task generated in fog and cloud computing Comparison based on performance metrics, Workflow scheduling and comparison is done using PSO algorithm | FogWorkflowSim toolkit | Design of efficient fog based framework for remote monitoring system of elderly people |
| Li et al. [ | Resource utlization and user satisfaction | Fuzzy c-means algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO) | Standardization and normalization of resource attributes, clustering of fog resources is done using fuzzy clustering with PSO Matching of classified resource with that of user request done using weighted matching method | MATLAB | The suggested approach may more quickly match user requests with relevant resource categories, resulting in higher user satisfaction |
| Aburukba et al. [ | Latency | Genetic algorithm | Scheduling of IoT request using customized genetic algorithm Two important parameters: population size (POP) and the maximum number of iterations (MAX) impacts directly on the quality of solution | Discrete event simulator | Suggested technique has a 21.9 to 46.6 per cent lower total latency than other algorithms |
| Kishor et al. [ | Latency | Intelligent multimedia data segregation (IMDS) scheme using machine learning | Data is divided into k-chunks using k-fold random forest technique k−1 chunks are used for training purpose and left for testing the model | Python 3.7 | By reducing latency and network utilization, the suggested approach improves the quality of service in e-healthcare |
| Akintoye et al. [ | Cost, latency, energy consumption | Hungarian algorithm based binding policy (HABBP), genetic algorithm based virtual machine placement (GABVMP) | Linear-programming problem of task allocation done using HABBP algorithm Load balancing is done using GABVMP algorithm | CloudSim | According to the simulation findings, the GABVMP outperformed the two greedy heuristics |
| Shahid et al. [ | Energy consumption, latency | Popularity-based cache mechanism | Random distribution for the popular content Filtration method id used for caching of popular content on active node Load-balancing algorithm to increase efficiency of overall system | python | In terms of energy usage and delay, the suggested approach's evaluation shows better results |
| Mahmud et al. [ | Latency | Module placement and module forwarding algorithm | Prioritization of application for allocating fog nodes is done using module placement algorithm Optimization of resources is done using module forwarding technique | iFogSim | For applications with tight deadlines, the suggested management approach overcomes latency in service delivery |
Fig. 1Proposed methodology to improve quality of service in healthcare system
Fig. 2Architecture of the DLSNN clustering
Fig. 3Flowchart of the proposed SBS algorithm
Latency comparison of cloud and fog and cloud
| Data | Cloud | Fog and cloud |
|---|---|---|
| 500 | 250 | 110 |
| 1000 | 581 | 138 |
| 1500 | 1280 | 134 |
| 2000 | 1678 | 295 |
| 2500 | 2210 | 482 |
| 3000 | 2791 | 479 |
Fig. 4Latency of fog compared to Fog + cloud system
Network usage of cloud and fog and cloud
| Data | Cloud | Fog and cloud |
|---|---|---|
| 500 | 284 | 180 |
| 1000 | 377 | 290 |
| 1500 | 499 | 321 |
| 2000 | 537 | 438 |
| 2500 | 578 | 488 |
| 3000 | 687 | 521 |
Fig. 5Network utilization in fog compared to fog + cloud system
Performance measure of average delay
| Average waiting time in (ms) | FCFS | SJF | BMO | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | 176 | 129 | 221 | 110 |
| 1000 | 254 | 192 | 321 | 143 |
| 1500 | 296 | 218 | 378 | 154 |
| 2000 | 429 | 278 | 398 | 187 |
| 2500 | 578 | 398 | 467 | 231 |
| 3000 | 595 | 486 | 521 | 243 |
Fig. 6Average delay of proposed approach compared to existing techniques