| Literature DB >> 35957320 |
Helen Sharmila Anbarasan1, Jaisankar Natarajan1.
Abstract
Wireless body area networks (WBANs) are a research area that supports patients with healthcare monitoring. In WBAN, the Internet of Things (IoT) is connected with WBAN for a smart/remote healthcare monitoring system in which various medical diseases are diagnosed. Quality of service (QoS), security and energy efficiency achievements are the major issues in the WBAN-IoT environment. Existing schemes for these three issues fail to achieve them since nodes are resource constrained and hence delay and the energy consumption is minimized. In this paper, a blockchain-assisted delay and energy aware healthcare monitoring (B-DEAH) system is presented in the WBAN-IoT environment. Both body sensors and environment sensors are deployed with dual sinks for emergency and periodical packet transmission. Various processes are involved in this paper, and each process is described as follows: Key registration for patients using an extended version of the PRESENT algorithm is proposed. Cluster formation and cluster head selection are implemented using spotted hyena optimizer. Then, cluster-based routing is established using the MOORA algorithm. For data transmission, the patient block agent (PBA) is deployed and authenticated using the four Q curve asymmetric algorithm. In PBA, three entities are used: classifier and queue manager, channel selector and security manager. Each entity is run by a special function, as packets are classified using two stream deep reinforcement learning (TS-DRL) into three classes: emergency, non-emergency and faulty data. Individual packets are put into a separate queue, which is called emergency, periodical and faulty. Each queue is handled using Reyni entropy. Periodical packets are forwarded by a separate channel without any interference using a multi objective based channel selection algorithm. Then, all packets are encrypted and forwarded to the sink nodes. Simulation is conducted using the OMNeT++ network simulator, in which diverse parameters are evaluated and compared with several existing works in terms of network throughput for periodic (41.75 Kbps) and emergency packets (42.5 Kbps); end-to-end delay for periodic (0.036 s) and emergency packets (0.028 s); packet loss rate (1.1%); residual energy in terms of simulation rounds based on periodic (0.039 J) and emergency packets (0.044 J) and in terms of simulation time based on periodic (8.35 J) and emergency packets (8.53 J); success rate for periodic (87.83%) and emergency packets (87.5%); authentication time (3.25 s); and reliability (87.83%).Entities:
Keywords: blockchain; internet of things; quality of service (QoS); secure cluster based routing; wireless body area networks
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35957320 PMCID: PMC9371143 DOI: 10.3390/s22155763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Research gaps.
| Area Focused | Research Gap |
|---|---|
|
Direct data transmissions without considering clustering to the sink nodes were achieved in some of the existing papers which affect the Many of the existing papers perform clustering however, the clustered data in the gateway was not efficiently handled in terms of delay and throughput which also affects the The routing protocols used in the existing research are limited with less reliability in communication and suffer from transmission errors which also affect the | |
| Security Provisioning [ |
Some of the existing works not considered authentication rather they consider data security which also affects the patient’s privacy. Most state-of-the-art works employ heavy-weight cryptographic algorithms for data encryption and authentication, however, which leads to high energy consumption in the WBAN-IoT networks. Some of the existing work limits with considering the minimal amount of security metrics for providing security in WBAN-IoT however, which imposes major attacks in the WBAN-IoT environment such as false injection attacks, impersonation attacks, etc. |
| Blockchain [ |
Conventional blockchain models are limited with high energy consumption, latency, and scalability issues in terms of block creation and validation time.These problems in the conventional blockchain are not suitable for resource-constrained WBAN-IoT. |
Figure 1System architecture.
Figure 2Security evaluation for WBAN.
Patient healthcare data.
| Data Collection Factors | IoT Devices | Parameters | Sensing Event Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body sensors related data | Heart sensors, | Heart Rate, | High Heart Rate, |
| Environment related data | Temperature sensors, | Temperature, | High room temperature, |
IEEE 802.15.6-based CSMA/CA-MAC Protocol Data Traffic Specification.
| PHP (Octal Symbol) |
|
| Data Traffic Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 |
|
| Emergency (VHP) |
| 3 |
|
| Periodic (HP) |
| 2 |
|
| Video (NP) |
| 1 |
|
| Voice (NP) |
| 0 |
|
| Others (NP) |
Factors to adjust the and are distance, RSSI, residual energy. PHP—patient health priority, VHP—very high priority, HP—high priority, NP—normal priority.
Figure 3TS-DNN environment.
Figure 4Extended version of PRESENT algorithm.
Figure 5Network topology.
B-DEAH configurations.
| Parameters | Specifications |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Simulation Environment | 1000 × 1000 m |
| Number of WBANs | 1–5 |
| Number of Body Sensors (Each BAN) | 12 |
| MAC type | IEEE 802.15.6 MAC |
| Sensing Interval | 0.1 s |
| Multiple access technique | CSMA/CA |
| Packet size | 512 bits |
| Bandwidth | 20 MHz |
| Transmission rate | 20 kpbs |
| Modulation (Data Rate) | DQPSK (1000 Kbps) |
| Energy consumption | 0.5 mW |
| Simulation time | 50 s |
| Number of Sink Nodes | 2(1-Emergency, 2-Periodical) |
| Transmission Rate | 5 Packets/s |
| Number of PBA (each WBAN) | 5 |
| MAC Header Length | 32 |
| Number of Frame Slots | 20 |
| Slot Duration | 1 s |
| Buffer Capacity | 32 |
| Block Size | 2 KB |
| Block Chain Type | Linear/Non-Linear |
| Key Size | 80 bits |
| Passwords | Alphabets/integer |
|
| |
| Operating System | Windows 7 (32-bit) |
| Processor | Dual core |
| RAM | 4 GB and above |
Figure 6OMNeT++ simulation environment for multiple ban and body sensors in single ban.
Body sensors (emergency and periodical range).
| Body Sensors | Emergency (Data Range Units) | Periodical (Data Range Units) |
|---|---|---|
| ECG | ∼60–100 bpm | > |
| Heart Rate | 60–100 bpm | >100 bpm |
| Blood Pressure | 120/80 mm/Hg | ≥140 mm/Hg |
| Temperature | >100 °F | 97.8–99 °F |
| Oxygen Level | <60 mm/Hg | 80–100 mm/Hg |
| Respiratory | <6 bps | 30–40 bps |
| EEG | <7 Hz | >8 Hz |
Figure 7Block diagram for CVD patients diagnosis.
Figure 8Network throughput vs. simulation rounds (emergency packets).
Figure 9Network throughput vs. simulation rounds (periodic packets).
Figure 10End-to-end delay vs. simulation rounds (emergency packets).
Figure 11End-to-end delay vs. simulation rounds (periodic packets.
Figure 12Packet loss rate vs. simulation rounds.
Figure 13Authentication time vs. number of nodes.
Figure 14Residual energy vs. simulation rounds (emergency packets).
Figure 15Residual energy vs. simulation rounds (periodic packets).
Figure 16Residual energy vs. simulation time (s) (emergency packets).
Figure 17Residual energy vs. simulation time (s) (periodic packets).
Figure 18Success rate vs. simulation time (emergency packets).
Figure 19Success rate vs. simulation time (periodic packets).
Fault data elimination check.
| Number of BAN | Fault Data Elimination Check (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| B-DEAH | E-HARP | |
| 1 | 97.6 | 80 |
| 2 | 98.6 | 81.5 |
| 3 | 99.3 | 82.5 |
| 4 | 99.6 | 83.6 |
| 5 | 99.8 | 85 |
Overall comparison of proposed and existing works.
| Performance Metrics | CF-EHARP | PCA | E-Harp | B-DEAH | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Throughput (Kbps) | Emergency Packets | 20.8 ± 0.4 | 22.5 ± 0.3 | 23.8 ± 0.5 | 42.5 ± 0.1 | |
| Periodic Packets | 20.08 ± 0.4 | 22 ± 0.2 | 23.11 ± 0.5 | 41.75 ± 0.1 | ||
| End-to-end delay (s) | Emergency Packets | 0.042 ± 0.3 | 0.039 ± 0.2 | 0.031 ± 0.4 | 0.028 ± 0.1 | |
| Periodic Packets | 0.06 ± 0.3 | 0.052 ± 0.2 | 0.041 ± 0.5 | 0.036 ± 0.1 | ||
| Packet loss rate (%) | Number of rounds | 5.18 ± 0.4 | 2.81 ± 0.2 | 9.83 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | |
| Residual energy (J) | Simulation Rounds | Emergency Packets | 0.03 ± 0.3 | 0.026 ± 0.2 | 0.03 ± 0.4 | 0.044 ± 0.1 |
| Periodic Packets | 7.55 ± 0.4 | 5.6 ± 0.3 | 5.68 ± 0.5 | 0.039 ± 0.1 | ||
| Simulation time | Emergency Packets | 7.51 ± 0.3 | 5.53 ± 0.2 | 5.6 ± 0.4 | 8.53 ± 0.1 | |
| Periodic Packets | 57.3 ± 0.4 | 70.83 ± 0.3 | 53.33 ± 0.5 | 8.35 ± 0.1 | ||
| Success rate (%) | Emergency Packets | 57.33 ± 0.3 | 70.83 ± 0.2 | 53.33 ± 0.4 | 87.5 ± 0.1 | |
| Periodic Packets | 57.33 ± 0.4 | 70.83 ± 0.2 | 53.33 ± 0.5 | 87.83 ± 0.1 | ||
| Reliability (%) | Packets per second | 57.83 ± 0.4 | 70.83 ± 0.3 | 53.5 ± 0.2 | 87.83 ± 0.1 | |
Figure 20Reliability vs. packets per second.