MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127126279 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.151120

A Comprehensive Survey on Lightweight Cryptography Algorithms to Enhance Quality of Service in Medical Internet of Things

2025· article· W7127126279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tanukonda Padmaja, Misha Chandar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet of ThingsCryptographyService (business)Quality (philosophy)The Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet of Things (IoT) refers to the network of interconnected electronic devices and software that gather, transmit, and analyze data.Included in the healthcare category are fitness trackers and other wearable tech, as well as high-tech medical equipment used in hospitals to record patients' vital signs.The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) enables these devices to communicate and share data, which improves the ability of healthcare providers, nurses, and family members to deliver efficient and timely care.Natural disaster prediction, information management, agriculture, healthcare monitoring, and many more disciplines could potentially benefit from it.No IoT application should ever compromise on security.Security measures to protect sensitive patient data are becoming more important as IoMT devices become more widely used.All the way from high-tech medical imaging systems to portable fitness trackers, these gadgets are constantly gathering and sending patient data in real-time.The security and privacy of sensitive medical data are becoming more important as the IoMT is being used more and more in healthcare.As the IoMT was being developed, the security of user data was given top priority.Lightweight cryptography (LWC) is one approach that might be used to enhance the security and privacy of the IoMT.Execution time, memory consumption, latency, throughput, and security resilience are some of the parameters taken into account when evaluating algorithms on IoT boards with limited processor power and capabilities.Following these steps will help users evaluate cryptographic algorithms for their suitability and make well-informed selections as they search for the best ones that strike a balance between performance and security.This research benefits academics and researchers by providing a deeper understanding of existing security models and facilitating the development of improved approaches for protecting medical IoT data.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207