HealthGuard: An Intelligent Healthcare System Security Framework Based on Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilization of the Internet of Things and ubiquitous computing in medical apparatuses have “smartified” the current healthcare system. These days, healthcare is used for more than simply curing patients. A Smart Healthcare System (SHS) is a network of implanted medical devices and wearables that monitors patients in real-time to detect and avert potentially fatal illnesses. With its expanding capabilities comes a slew of security threats, and there are many ways in which a SHS might be exploited by malicious actors. These include, but are not limited to, interfering with regular SHS functioning, inserting bogus data to modify vital signs, and meddling with medical devices. This study presents HealthGuard, an innovative security architecture for SHSs that uses machine learning to identify potentially harmful actions taken by users. HealthGuard monitors the vitals of many SHS-connected devices and compares the vitals to distinguish normal from abnormal activity. For the purpose of locating potentially dangerous actions inside a SHS, HealthGuard employs four distinct machine learning-based detection approaches (Artificial Neural Network, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and k-Nearest Neighbor). Eight different smart medical devices were used to train HealthGuard for a total of twelve harmless occurrences, seven of which are common user activities and five of which are disease-related occurrences. HealthGuard was also tested for its ability to defend against three distinct forms of harmful attack. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that HealthGuard is a reliable security architecture for SHSs, with a 91% success rate and in F1-score of 90% success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".