MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Authentication Protocol for Real-Time Wearable Medical Sensor Networks Using Biometrics and Continuous Monitoring

2019· article· en· W2981882061 on OpenAlexaff
Nada Radwan Mohsen, Bidi Ying, Amiya Nayak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiometricsComputer scienceWearable computerProtocol (science)Authentication protocolAuthentication (law)Embedded systemWireless sensor networkComputer networkComputer securityReal-time computingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The open nature of wireless medical sensor networks in a public untrusted environment makes them vulnerable to various security threats and puts the security and privacy of patient information at risk. This paper introduces a new ECC based lightweight mutual authentication and key agreement protocol to be used in real-time wireless medical sensor networks between doctors/nurses, trusted servers, sensors and patients. Unlike existing schemes, our scheme uses biometrics on both doctor/nurse and patient sides. It allows the doctor/nurse to login to the system using his/her fingerprint and verifies patient identity by means of continuous monitoring of physiological data (e.g., ECG signals) in which verification of the patient identity is carried out automatically and at set intervals to detect physical theft of the sensor which may be hooked on to a different patient. Our scheme also uses dynamic identity to provide user anonymity and mitigate against user traceability. Security analysis shows that our protocol is resistant to the user, sensor and patient impersonation attacks, physical sensor theft, and so on. Performance analysis proved our scheme to be competitive in comparison to existing schemes relative to the added security benefits it provides.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207