GDPR Compliant Data Storage and Sharing in Smart Healthcare System: A Blockchain-Based Solution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart healthcare systems provide user-centric medical services to patients based on collected information of patients inducing personal health information (PHI) and personal identifiable information (PII). The information (PII and PHI) flows into the smart healthcare system with or without any regulation and patient concern with the help of new information and communication technologies (ICT). The use of ICT comes with the security and privacy issues of collected PII and PHI data. The Europe Union has published the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to regulate the flow of personal information. Towards this end, this paper proposes a blockchain-based data storage and sharing framework for a smart healthcare system that complies with the “Privacy by Design” rule of the GDPR. The personal information collected from patients is stored on off-chain storage (IPFS), and other information is stored on the blockchain ledger, which is visible to all participants. The smart contracts are designed to share the PII data with another participant based on prior permission of the data owner. The proposed framework also includes the deletion of PII and PHI in the system as per the “Right to be Forgotten” GDPR rule. Security and privacy analyses are performed for the framework to demonstrate the security and privacy of data while sharing and at rest. The comparative performance analysis demonstrates the benefit of the proposed GDPR-compliant data storage and sharing framework using blockchain. It is evident from the reported results that the proposed framework outperforms the state-of-the-art techniques in terms of performance metrics in a smart healthcare system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it