A Smart Contract-Driven Access Control Schemewith Integrity Checking for Electronic Health Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The application of healthcare systems has led to an explosive growth in personal electronic health records (EHRs). These EHRs are generated from different healthcare institutions and stored in cloud data centers, respectively. However, data owners lose the authority to control and track their private and sensitive EHRs. In fact, data owners cannot establish rules for EHRs exchanging and sharing, nor can they verify the integrity of EHRs stored in semi-trusted clouds. Hence, a individual-centric access control framework is required to realize data access control. In this study, we construct a data access control framework, which integrates the decentralized smart contracts and role-based access control (RBAC) to provide fine grained data access control services. Besides, this scheme allows data owners to define access control policies using JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) and further translate these policies into immutable blockchain transactions. Furthermore, we combine blockchain and bilinear mapping to design a data integrity verification system for users to check the integrity of their cloud stored EHRs. Finally, we analyze the security of this scheme and develop a prototype system to evaluate the performance. Both theoretical analysis and experiment results indicate that this scheme can realize fine-grained data access control and efficient data integrity verification
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".