A Lightweight Encryption Method for IoT-Based Healthcare Applications: A Review and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices in healthcare, from wearable sensors to implantable medical devices, has revolutionised patient monitoring, personalised treatment, and remote care delivery. However, the resource-constrained nature of IoT devices, coupled with the sensitivity of medical data, presents critical security challenges. Traditional encryption methods, while robust, are computationally intensive and unsuitable for IoT environments, leaving sensitive patient information vulnerable to cyber threats. Addressing this gap, lightweight encryption methods have emerged as a pivotal solution to balance security with the limited processing power, memory, and energy resources of IoT devices. This paper explores lightweight encryption methods tailored for IoT healthcare applications, evaluating their effectiveness in securing sensitive data while operating under resource constraints. A comparative analysis is conducted on encryption techniques such as AES-128, LEA, Ascon, GIFT, HIGHT, PRINCE, and RC5-32/12/16, based on key performance metrics including block size, key size, encryption and decryption speeds, throughput, and security levels. The findings highlight that AES-128, LEA, ASCON, and GIFT are best suited for high-sensitivity healthcare data due to their strong security features, while HIGHT and PRINCE provide balanced protection for medium-sensitivity applications. RC5-32/12/16, on the other hand, prioritises efficiency over comprehensive security, making it suitable for low-risk scenarios where computational overhead must be minimised. The paper underscores the significant trade-offs between efficiency, security, and resource consumption, emphasising the need for careful selection of encryption methods based on the specific requirements of IoT healthcare environments. Additionally, the paper highlights the growing demand for lightweight encryption methods that balance energy efficiency with robust protection against cyber threats. These insights offer valuable guidance for researchers and practitioners seeking to enhance the security of IoT-based healthcare systems while ensuring optimal performance in resource-constrained settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".