You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sensors
  • Article
  • Open Access

11 September 2023

Fuzzy-Based Efficient Healthcare Data Collection and Analysis Mechanism Using Edge Nodes in the IoMT

,
,
,
,
and
1
School of Information and Communication Engineering, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, China
2
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Wireless Broadband Communication and Signal Processing, School of Information and Communication, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, China
3
School of Computers and Cyberspace Security, Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin 541004, China
4
Department of Computers Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal 57000, Pakistan
This article belongs to the Special Issue AI-Driven Internet-of-Thing (AIoT) for E-health Applications

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) is an advanced technology that comprises numerous devices with carrying sensors to collect, send, and receive data. Due to its vast popularity and efficiency, it is employed in collecting crucial data for the health sector. As the sensors generate huge amounts of data, it is better for the data to be aggregated before being transmitting the data further. These sensors generate redundant data frequently and transmit the same values again and again unless there is no variation in the data. The base scheme has no mechanism to comprehend duplicate data. This problem has a negative effect on the performance of heterogeneous networks.It increases energy consumption; and requires high control overhead, and additional transmission slots are required to send data. To address the above-mentioned challenges posed by duplicate data in the IoT-based health sector, this paper presents a fuzzy data aggregation system (FDAS) that aggregates data proficiently and reduces the same range of normal data sizes to increase network performance and decrease energy consumption. The appropriate parent node is selected by implementing fuzzy logic, considering important input parameters that are crucial from the parent node selection perspective and share Boolean digit 0 for the redundant values to store in a repository for future use. This increases the network lifespan by reducing the energy consumption of sensors in heterogeneous environments. Therefore, when the complexity of the environment surges, the efficiency of FDAS remains stable. The performance of the proposed scheme has been validated using the network simulator and compared with base schemes. According to the findings, the proposed technique (FDAS) dominates in terms of reducing energy consumption in both phases, achieves better aggregation, reduces control overhead, and requires the fewest transmission slots.

1. Introduction

The Internet of Things (IoT) is made up of smart devices that can communicate with each other by exchanging information []. These devices include multiple intelligent sensory elements and wearable smart devices, which are crucial for the development of the IoT []. The IoT has become an integral part of various fields such as healthcare, mining, buildings, cities, agriculture, transportation, industries, smart homes [], smart surveillance [,], and automated systems []. Smart medical devices in healthcare can connect people and objects, making life easier and more convenient []. The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) has become a crucial component of healthcare, offering intelligent services by collecting different types of data and transmitting them to cloud-based repositories [,]. The integration of the IoMT into smart healthcare has enabled seamless connectivity. As a result, developing an environmentally sustainable [] solution to address the multiple challenges faced by the latest IoT-based smart healthcare strategies [,] is critical. Medical devices enable remote monitoring of patients, resulting in improved quality and efficiency of medical treatment.
Health information is collected from patients’ sensor devices and then transmitted to smart collectors in a secure manner in both normal and emergency situations []. Miniaturized devices play a crucial role in healthcare data collection, where security is quite critical [] for efficient authentication  []. Cyber–physical systems (CPSs) are utilized in social services, particularly in healthcare applications, as cost-effective solutions []. In health monitoring, the health-related data of patients are transmitted to the cyber world to allow for real-time processing and analysis of vast amounts of data []. In this scenario, enhanced computing frameworks are necessary to dynamically integrate both real-world and cyber aspects of medical cyber–physical systems []. IoT-enabled medical networks can manage complex communication to handle the processing of many users [].
Fog computing architectures act as a middle layer between cloud servers and end users, providing data computation, storage services, and networking capabilities. The term “FoG server” was first introduced by Cisco []. The smart healthcare architecture [] enables monitoring devices to communicate with patients and transmit data to a server remotely [,]. At the edge of the network, the smart healthcare architecture processes large amounts of data generated by numerous devices to reduce bandwidth and energy consumption. This reduces overhead on the cloud server and balances the load among multiple local fog nodes by integrating fog and the IoT []. Fog nodes may make intelligent decisions in emergency situations to efficiently handle critical health issues [] with smart collector nodes []. The combination of fog computing and cloud computing can be an appropriate solution to overcome challenges in the IoT and healthcare systems [,].
Data aggregation is a critical technique used in the IoMT to collect health parameters from sensing devices and transmit them in a collective manner to reduce the transmission cost []. Furthermore, to optimize the data aggregation processes, mobile devices have been introduced as collector nodes []. For better collection and analysis of the data, fuzzy logic is employed. An efficient fuzzy-based healthcare data collection analysis mechanism is an approach that utilizes FL to analyze data. These data are gathered from wearable sensors, implanted devices, and some other resources. FL uses a mathematical framework to manage patient data and, in return, provides decisive information to healthcare professionals. This mechanism is needed in the healthcare sector because FL efficiently tackles huge, sophisticated, and varying patient data. It examines changes in patients’ data readings over time, assists doctors in making rational decisions timely to avoid health complications later on, and is cost-effective. These benefits cannot be attained with conventional methods. Robust security measures are demanded in IoMT systems to preserve patient data privacy and integrity [,].
Ensuring secure and privacy-preserved aggregated data is a crucial and mandatory aspect of both edge–node devices and fog nodes []. To maintain both data integrity [] and to authenticate edge devices, authentication is also required using encryption-based measures  []. Recent surveys add to the body of knowledge on aggregating healthcare data using IoT-based sensing devices [,] and the applications of fog computing [,]. However, these surveys do not address the security measures needed during the transmission of aggregated data. On the other hand, [,] considered security measures but did not extensively explore IoT scenarios. In [,,], secure data collection and aggregation scenarios were explored but fog-assisted approaches were not considered.
The proposed technique, called the fuzzy data aggregation system (FDAS), maintains a high data aggregation rate in heterogeneous environments, even when the number of attributions increases. After studying the literature on AI-based data aggregation, the current problem was identified. The proposed methodology emphasizes effective data aggregation and the elimination of duplicate values to boost network performance and decrease energy consumption. The aggregated data from various sensors are checked for duplicate readings before being sent to the central server. To check the effectiveness of the proposed scheme, a simulation was conducted using NS-2.35. The results were compared with those of some previous robust schemes in terms of some crucial metrics. The proposed scheme significantly reduces data size and reduces communication costs, making it an appropriate choice for use in the healthcare sector.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
  • We studied the most relevant literature on data aggregation using artificial intelligence techniques.
  • We developed the FDAS, a scheme that uses fuzzy logic to select a suitable parent node for each child node in a heterogeneous environment.
  • We developed a detailed mechanism for dealing with in-range normal data by sending Boolean digit zero to reduce the size and transmission of duplicate messages.
  • We conducted simulations and compared the results of the FDAS with those of some prominent schemes, including FAJIT, DQN-FATOA, DICA, and DICA_EXTENSION.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explores the literature related to fuzzy-based data aggregation schemes. Section 3 explores the system model and the problem statement. Section 4 presents the proposed fuzzy-based solution for data sharing, and Section 5 presents the results and discussion. Finally, Section 6 concludes our paper and highlights future work.

3. System Model and Problem Statement

In this section, the system model of the proposed scheme is discussed. The scenario of the system model is presented in Figure 1. The nodes are randomly organized in a heterogeneous manner to collect different types of healthcare data from clusters. The patients are equipped with wearable medical sensor equipment to be monitored. In level 1, these heterogeneous sensors collect data readings from the patient’s body and transmit them to the aggregating (parent) node. In level 2, multiple aggregators share their data with fog servers, and data are stored there, accessed by healthcare professionals to check the patient’s underlying health conditions. When sensors continuously transmit data, they contain duplicate data; for example, when a patient’s temperature or heartbeat does not fluctuate, the same readings are frequently shared. Boolean values are initialized to reduce this data redundancy, which transmits zero when the data are the same as earlier. In level 3, after the data duplication issue is resolved, the data are shared with a countrywide cloud server. Authenticated medical professionals or users can access the specific health information stored in the cloud servers. When an authenticated user requests detailed information, the edge nodes first receive the request. The edge nodes send the necessary information to the requested device if the required data are available. Otherwise, the edge nodes retrieve the needed data from the cloud repositories.
Figure 1. System model of proposed scheme.
As in the existing scheme, the data aggregation process in a heterogeneous environment uses a tree-based approach with bottom-up scheduling to maintain aggregation freshness. Parent nodes are selected from the candidate set having a direct link to the child node based on the number of the least dynamic neighbors. In such cases, when more than one candidate node has the same number of active neighbors, fuzzification is performed; afterward, min–max normalization is used to scale-up the weights on the edges of nodes in the graph. The consequences on the edges of the nodes are normalized using min–max normalization. These weights work as membership values, and the node with the lowest membership value and having a direct link to the child node is chosen as the parent node. But in aggregation, it shares the same readings of parameters again and again. For example, it repeatedly shares the same temperature value in an entire day, even if it remains the same or within the normal range.
Sharing duplicate data occasionally results in a negative impact on WSNs. Frequently sharing the same data wastes network resources like bandwidth and battery power. It enhances the communication overhead and the additional energy consumption as well. Repeatedly transmitting the same data among many sensor nodes in a network can cause congestion, leading to decreased reliability and performance. It also decreases network lifetime, reduces data quality, and causes late recognition of anomalies. To overcome these drawback, data size needs to be reduced, which needs to be accommodated in existing techniques [].

4. Proposed Solution

The proposed scheme, the fuzzy data aggregation system (FDAS), aims to reduce energy consumption while transmitting data. This study considered the data generated by sensors in healthcare environments. Patients wear different healthcare devices so that their blood pressure, pulse rate, and sugar levels can be monitored and immediate action can be taken in the event of an emergency. All these wearable sensors are different, measuring data in various formats, so the network is heterogeneous, where nodes generate multiple data. A synchronized tree-based mechanism is proposed for better aggregation of these heterogeneous data. The bottom-up process of data aggregation from nodes is achieved, and selecting a suitable parent is mandatory for the economic consumption of nodes’ energy.
To achieve these objectives, two main phases are the control and the data phases. During the control phase, nodes select a slot and an appropriate parent. In the data phase, data are sent through the tree to the parent node created in the control phase. In a network, nodes receive data packets and send them, too. The first scenario deals with nodes receiving data packets; it has complete information about (i) the total number of arriving data packets and (ii) the type of data packet. In addition to this, the node knows about the attributes of the data packet created independently. When nodes start selecting their time slot to transmit data to the parent, they need to perform some tasks, including (i) knowing the type and number of data packets, (ii) labeling the nodes, and (iii) giving weights to edges. For weight, the distance between nodes is calculated. In the second case, when the node transmits a data packet, the transmitter node knows (i) the total number of departing packets and (ii) the attributes of the data packets. The node performs a suitable parent selection for every outgoing data packet, so there is a probability that a different parent is selected for every outgoing data packet.

4.1. Appropriate Parent Selection

In a heterogeneous network, selecting an appropriate parent node is challenging because there is a high chance that the children of a node generate different types of data packets. If the parent aggregation node is selected efficiently, energy consumption is reduced. In a node, energy is utilized when control data packets are swapped while selecting the slot and parent. The efficient selection of the parent node effectively aggregates data from nodes, which directly impacts total slot usage, control messages, and energy utilization in both the control and data phases. In this stage, the energy utilization of node i ( E i c ) and E C is determined using Equations (5) and (6) []. E initial represents the starting energy level of the nodes in the network; E i r e s i d u a l denotes the residual energy at the end of this phase. Equation (6) determines the average energy consumption in the control phase ( E C ) of the nodes:
E i c = E initial E i residual i = 1 , 2 , 3 , , n
E c = Σ 1 n E i c n i = 1 , 2 , 3 , , n
The flow of different algorithms is shown in the block diagram in Figure 2. The set of notations is presented in Table 1.
Figure 2. The flow of different algorithms.
Table 1. List of notations.
The parent node selection is not a solo mechanism: slot and parent selection are performed together to reduce energy consumption and enhance network lifetime. To select an appropriate parent node, first of all, nodes having direct links to the child node are checked. These sets of nodes are named as candidate nodes. Thier total dynamic number of neighbors is counted for all the candidate nodes. The node with the least-active neighbors is considered the parent node. In the scenario where two candidate nodes have the same number of dynamic nodes, the normalized weights for edges are calculated using Equation (7) [], where v is the value to be scaled, Min ( A ) is the minimum original value, Mox ( A ) shows the maximum original value, now M ( w ) A ) is the new minimum value in the new range of data, n g w cos ( A ) is the new minimum value in the new range of data, and v l shows the scaled value of v.
v 1 = v Min ( A ) Max ( A ) Min ( A ) ( newMax ( A ) new Min ( A ) ) + new Min ( A )
In the fuzzifier, the crisp input values are given to the FIS to obtain an accurate, crisp output after defuzzification. The linguistics used for input values are low, medium, and high. For the fuzzy inference system, three input values are considered based on these input values; one output is generated. The input set consists of residual energy, relative node connectivity, and load on the node. The input value is explained using the AND operator preceding with an IF statement. In the context of the FDAS, the triangular member function is employed because of its simplicity, ease of interpretation, and effective computation. The triangular member function is appropriate for observing gradual variations in the selected parameters. These parameters are residual energy, node connectivity, and load on nodes, which are crucial factors in the context of the healthcare sector. By applying triangular membership functions, the system remains obvious, interpretable, and well suited to the domain’s necessities without excessive complexity. The Mamdani fuzzy system (type 1) is used in the proposed scheme. It can handle ambiguity and vagueness in decision making from various potential outcomes. In the proposed solution, where node types are wide in range, generating data readings in different formats, the Mamdani fuzzy system checks the linguistics of the input parameters. Finally, it assists by selecting an appropriate parent node. The 27 rules used as FISs are explained in Algorithm 2. Residual energy is the remaining energy in the sensor node after performing some operation like sensing or transmitting bits of data to the parent node. The member function of residual energy with its linguistics is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Member function for residual energy.
The second input is a load on the candidate node, which is an important metric as it shows volumes of data on a node to be processed as communication overhead while sharing data with other nodes. In Figure 4, the member functions for this input are shown. The third input is relative node connectivity (RNC); this metric defines how well a node is connected to its subgraph and the nodes at a higher level. The functions for this input are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Member function for load on node.
Figure 5. Member function for relative node connectivity.
Figure 6 elucidates the output obtained according to input to the fuzzy system. It contains nine triangular MFs: very low, low, quite low, lower medium, medium, higher medium, high and very high.
Figure 6. Output member functions.
In the defuzzifier, the final crisp output is calculated by the center of the area (CoA) shown in Equation (8) []. A node having high residual energy, higher RNC, the lowest load, and the minimum weight has the highest chance of being selected as a parent node. i = 1 r u s μ ( k ) is the sum of the membership degree of each node, and u ( μ ( k ) ) is a numerical value of obtained at level k, which denotes the certain node. The detailed procedure of the parent selection node is shown in Algorithm 1.
CoA = i = 1 rules μ ( k ) · u ( μ ( k ) ) i = 1 r u l e s μ ( k )
Algorithm 1 Parent Selection at Control Phase
1:
Input: total number of sensor nodes
2:
Output: Parent node
3:
if root=Nul then
4:
    Generate root
5:
    End
6:
end if
7:
while true do adding edges
8:
    // s denotes source, d denotes destination, and w denotes weight
9:
    function addEdge(int s, int d, int w)
10:
end while
11:
// during control phase
12:
for each node do
13:
    if t_slot_n[i] == a_slot then
14:
        Candidate_node[] = direct_link(C_node[]))
15:
        set n=function choose_aggregator(Candidate_node[])
16:
        // For checking dynamic neighbors
17:
        Neigh[] = count_dynamic(Candidate_node[]))
18:
        min_neigh=node[0].neigh[0]
19:
        for i=1; i<=size; i++ do
20:
           if (node[i].neigh[i] < min_neigh) then
21:
               parent= node[i].neigh[i]
22:
           else
23:
               parent= min_neigh
24:
           end if
25:
        end for
26:
        return n
27:
        End function
28:
    end if
29:
end for
In step 3–16, In steps 3–16, firstly, check that the tree-based WSN has a root tree; if it is empty, a root node is created. The add edge function is used to create edges between nodes, and weight is determined by calculating the difference between two nodes. The nodes are assigned a unique time slot to send data to avoid collision. A node in its allotted time slot checks the set of nodes directly linked to child nodes. These nodes are termed as candidate nodes. For these candidate nodes, the dynamic neighbors of each node are checked. The value of the first node is saved in the variable min_neigh. In steps 17–23, for loop starts that iterate over all the nodes, for all the nodes, it is checked that the value in the node is lower than that of the min_neigh. If the condition is true, then that node becomes the parent node; otherwise, min_neigh node remains the parent node. Finally, the function returns the value of the variable n, which was assigned in line 12. Afterwards, the function ends there.
In case two candidates have the same number of dynamic neighbors, fuzzy logic is employed for the selection of the parent node from the candidate set. For selecting the parent node, three fuzzy-based inputs are considered including residual energy (RE), relative node connectivity (RNC), and load on node (LN). The probability of nodes being elected as the parent node from the candidate set is determined using Algorithm 2. The membership values of the nodes are determined using the fuzzy inference system, represented as FIS (node[].RE, node[].RNC, node[].LN). i = 1 r u l e s μ ( k ) denotes the summation of the membership degree of each node, while u ( μ ( k ) ) is a numerical value obtained at round k. Through C o A = i = 1 r u l e s u ( k ) · u ( μ ( k ) ) i = 1 r u l e s μ ( k ) , defuzzification is performed, and a crisp output is obtained. To scale-up weights in the range of [0, 1], min–max normalization is performed. The node having the best FIS result and the lowest weight is selected as the parent node. Algorithm 2 takes residual energy, relative node connectivity, and load on candidate node of the candidate nodes as the input parameters and, based on node status, a linguistic output is generated that shows the chances of selection of a parent node from the candidate set. The FIS designed for the proposed scheme is shown in Figure 7.
Algorithm 2 Fuzzy algorithm and rules for FIS.
1:
Function FIS (RE, RNC, LN, PSCN) //RE: residual energy, RNC: relative node connectivity, LN: load on candidate node, PSCN: probability of selecting candidate node, CN: candidate node
2:
Rule 1: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is High) THEN (PSCN is higher medium).
3:
Rule 2: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN is high).
4:
Rule 3: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN is very high).
5:
Rule 4: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN is medium).
6:
Rule 5: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN is medium).
7:
Rule 6: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN is higher medium).
8:
Rule 7: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN is medium).
9:
Rule 8: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN is medium).
10:
Rule 9: IF, CN (RE is high), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN is medium).
11:
Rule 10: IF CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is low).
12:
Rule 11: IF CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN as parent is low).
13:
Rule 12: IF CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is medium).
14:
Rule 13: IF CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is lower medium).
15:
Rule 14: IF CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN as parent is medium).
16:
Rule 15: IF, CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is medium).
17:
Rule 16: IF, CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is lower medium).
18:
Rule 17: IF, CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is medium) THEN (probability of, CN as parent is medium).
19:
Rule 18: IF, CN (RE is medium), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is medium).
20:
Rule 19: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is low).
21:
Rule 20: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN as parent is Quite_low).
22:
Rule 21: IF CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is high), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is Quite_low).
23:
Rule 22: IF CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is very low).
24:
Rule 23: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN as parent is low).
25:
Rule 24: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is medium), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is Quite_low).
26:
Rule 25: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is high) THEN (PSCN as parent is very low).
27:
Rule 26: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is medium) THEN (PSCN as parent is low).
28:
Rule 27: IF, CN (RE is low), AND (RNC is low), AND (LN is low) THEN (PSCN as parent is very low).
29:
return result
30:
End function
Figure 7. Designed FIS for proposed scheme.

4.2. Data Packet Transmission in Data Phase

In the data phase, data are sent to the aggregator and from the aggregator to the fog server. These data contain duplicate information, which increases energy consumption during transmission. By using Equations (7) and (8), the energy utilization is calculated during the data phase ( E D ) . To reduce the energy consumption in the proposed system, duplicate data are checked before saving to local devices and shifted to a cloud server. As in an existing scheme, FAJIT, when the entire network is homogenous (when all nodes are of similar type), perfect data aggregation happens. The increase in attributes may decrease the aggregation factor. The attributes may include temperature, humidity, solar radiation, and humidity in cases where heterogeneity is high. Finding an appropriate parent node where suitable data collected from the nodes can be aggregated is problematic. In addition to this, transmitting the same data repeatedly increases communication overhead and lowers the method’s performance. The proposed solution considers the values of nodes that are communicating in the same or in a similar range; for such values, a Boolean value of zero or one is transmitted, where zero represents that value is the same as that shared previously; there is no variation in data, so there is no need to write the entire value of 16 or 32 bits. Instead, 1 bit is sent to save the number of bits transmitted in the networks. For example, if a patient’s pulse rate is the same, and there is no variation in its reading, it is better, to avoid transferring duplicate data frequently, to share zero digits to show the data are the same as before. So, as heterogeneity increases, attributes and variation increase, but the data size reduces. This helps with lessening energy consumption and aggregation factors and reduces the message size.
Along with this, it significantly reduces the effect of an increase in the number of attributes on the performance metrics, including aggregation score, transmission cost, and energy consumption. In Algorithm Algorithm 3, the proposed mechanism to reduce energy consumption is presented.
From steps 3–12, all nodes send their data to aggregating nodes, which transmit them to the nearest fog servers, where data are processed and checked for duplicates. If duplicate data are present, they are converted to Boolean format zero to show no variation, and then saved to a local repository so that doctors or healthcare professionals can access them. Afterward, when data are free from duplicates, they are sent to a cloud server and stored there. Table 2 shows the optimized fuzzy-centered table for electing a parent node from a set of candidates.
Algorithm 3 Transmission of Packets At Data Phase
1:
Input: Set of ANs
2:
Output: Redundancy-free data storage to cloud
3:
For each node
4:
transmit_data(n[i]) to ANs
5:
End
6:
transmit_info(ANs) to fog server
7:
If transmit_info_new == transmit_info previous then
8:
Send Boolean digit 0 for duplicate data
9:
Save to local storage device and transmit it to cloud server
10:
else
11:
Save to local storage device and transmit it to cloud server
12:
End
Table 2. Optimized Fuzzy-centered table for electing parent node from set of candidates.

5. Results and Analysis

To evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme, FDAS, extensive simulations were performed using NS-2.35. The nodes were placed randomly on the premises of the network. The whole area was divided into grids of 20 × 20. Between each two horizontal and vertical grid points, constant distance of 156 m was considered. Medical sensors were deployed on each patient as per the position of that sensor on the body. The patients inside the wards were deployed on a grid, whereas the outside patients were deployed per a Gaussian distribution. Arranging medical sensors on patients in a grid pattern inside the ward and using a Gaussian distribution for patients outside allowed for the efficient monitoring and management of patients’ health conditions. The mobility patterns of the patients were also considered while designing the sensor arrangement mechanism to efficiently accommodate various healthcare scenarios. The data transmission range for all types of sensors was kept to 30 m, while nodes produced a data packet after each 10 s. The time allotted for simulation was 2500 s to examine network performance for a prolonged period. A total of 300 nodes were placed in a network region of 3000 × 3000 m to observe different node attributes in a heterogeneous environment. For sending and receiving data packets, 0.5819 µj and 0.049 µj were considered for utilizing energy economically in the transmission range of 30 m. The values of the simulation parameters were adjusted considering real-world scenarios. The simulation time assigned to evaluate proposed scheme is 2000 s. For each scenario, simulation is performed various times and average were calculated. TCL files contained the node configurations and their arrangements, while for receiving and transmitting data packets, a separate class was created using c language. To obtain results from trace files, AWK script files were used.
The value assumed for probability was 0.5, which indicated a 50% chance that a node existed in the grid. As a heterogeneous environment was considered for the proposed scheme, four scenarios were used to evaluate the performance of the FDAS. When the number of attributes was one, it indicated that the network was homogenous, as all sensors were of the same type. The attributes showed the kind of nodes generating data per environment. In the first scenario, when the number of attributes was two, it indicated two types of nodes in the environment generating data. In the second scenario, four types of sensors were present in the network. As the attributes started increasing, the network became highly heterogeneous. All the attributes assigned to the nodes had equal probability. As in the third scenario, when the number of attributes was eight, such as A 1 , A 2 , A 3 , A 4 , A 5 , A 6 , A 7 , and A 8 . Then, ρ A j = 1 8 = 0.125 shows that any attribute allotted to a node had an estimated probability of 0.125. For validating the effectiveness of the proposed scheme, crucial metrics were considered, and the results were compared with those of some existing schemes: FAJIT, DICA, and DICA _EXTENSION.
Table 3 shows the simulation parameters and values.
Table 3. Simulation parameters and values.

5.1. Effect on Average Aggregation by Number of Attributes

This metric represents total number of data packets accumulated at the parent node before being transferred to the fog server. When there is only one attribute in the network, all schemes performed well. But as the heterogeneity started to increase, the network became complex, and average aggregation started falling. When there were two attributes, the effectiveness D I C A and DICA _EXTENSION started decreasing; the performance of FAJIT also decreased as the network complexity increased. FDAS achieved better aggregation even when the network started becoming more complex. The reason for this better aggregation achieved by the proposed scheme is that the attributes of every packet are considered before selecting the appropriate parent node. This increases the probability that data packets of type t are aggregated at the selected parent node; ultimately, parent nodes have to transmit a low number of packages farther, so when a suitable parent is selected, the aggregation factor remains stable even when heterogeneity starts increasing. In addition, in the case of equal dynamic neighbors, parameters are set intelligently to choose a parent node, which is not performed in existing schemes. In DQN-FATOA, the aggregation factor is better due to the scheme’s intelligent optimization approach. The aggregation node dynamically adjusts the frame length and the number of tasks offloaded to attain better aggregation.
For determining average aggregation, the summation of each node’s aggregation was considered. Figure 8a shows the average aggregation of all schemes for different numbers of attributes. On the X-axis, the number of attributes is shown, which is basically the types of nodes in the environment, while the Y-axis expresses the aggregation level in percentage. When the number of attributes is four, four different types of nodes are present in the WSN environment. The FAJI achieved an aggregation of 0.52, DQN-FATOA attained 0.62, DICA attained 0.35, DICA _EXTENSION obtained 0.39, and proposed scheme FDAS obtained highest aggregation level of 0.87. FDAS maintained a stable level of 0.24 % , 0.30 % , and 0.27 % compared with FAJIT, DICA and DICA _EXTENSION when the network was more complex (up to 16 attributes).
Figure 8. Effect on average aggregation (a) and energy utilization during control phase (b).

5.2. Energy Utilization during Control Phase

The control phase refers to the period when the network is created, nodes are set, and slots are selected, as well as suitable parents are selected to aggregate the data. It is the most important phase because the network performance of the data phase is mainly based on the control phase. If the control overhead increases during the selection of slots and parents, the energy utilization is also high. As energy depletion during control overhead has a direct impact on control phase, the appropriate parent node selection reduces the consumption of energy because it leads to choosing fewer slots for transmission. In DQN-FATOA, deep Q learning decisions are made for energy-intensive activities, for instance, parent and slot selection. Therefore data consumption is reduced in this phase. As the proposed scheme, FDSA, intelligently selects the parent node at each level by knowing the type of node, the energy consumption is lower than that of FAJIT, DICA, and DICA _EXTENSION. In Figure 8b, the X-axis presents the number of attributions, and the Y-axis presents the energy consumption in micro joules (µJ). For two attributes energy consumption is 88, 60, 108, 103, and 50 in F A J I T , DQN-FATOA, DICA, DICA _EXTENSION, and FDAS, respectively. FDAS reduced the energy utilization by up to 38%, 58%, and 53% compared with FAJIT, DICA, and DICA _EXTENSION.

5.3. Energy Utilization during Data Phase

Once slot and parent selection is completed, data are transmitted during the data phase. In a WSN environment, sensors generate the same data when there is no variation in the environment, and this duplicate data transmission increases energy consumption. The proposed scheme, FDAS, compresses the duplicate data by converting them into Boolean digits and transmitting only one bit, zero, to indicate redundant data. As the number of attributes increases, energy usage rises. But, the data conversion feature of FDAS provides significant improvements in energy utilization. So, the increase in the number of attributes does not have much impact on the energy factor due to the replacement of redundant data in the Boolean system, which eventually lessens the energy usage compared with that of previous schemes. In DQN-FATOA, the distribution of computational tasks is balanced by the DQN mechanism, so nodes are not overburdened, which reduces energy consumption. No such mechanism is used in the other schemes. FAJIT consumes more energy in this phase because of finding a suitable parent node. DICA and DICA_EXTENSION select the nearest nodes as parents and consume less energy. The performance of FDAS and existing techniques is shown in Figure 9a. The X-axis shows the number of attributes; the Y-axis presents the energy consumption during the data phase in (µJ). For 12 attributes, which produces a higher level of heterogeneity, the energy consumption is 34 for the proposed scheme µJ, 60 for FAJIT µJ, 45 for DQN-FATOA µJ, 72 for DICA µJ, and 67 for DICA µJ.
Figure 9. Energy utilization in the data phase (a) and effect of attributes on schedule length (SH) (b).

5.4. Effect of Number of Attributes on Schedule Length (SH)

Schedule length (SH) is defined as the selection of the exclusive slots needed to schedule data from a set of sensor nodes to the aggregator node. The schedule length is inversely proportional to the aggregation factor. If aggregation is low, schedule length (SH) is long. Similarly, if aggregation is higher, then the schedule length is shorter. The schedule length also varies in a heterogeneous network. In a subtree where eight types of nodes are generating data, finding a suitable parent is more difficult than in a subtree where only two types of nodes are present. The reason for the shorter schedule length is the dynamic capability of DQN-FATOA to aggregate frames and make offloading decisions. The length of the aggregated frames are observed and combined with a smaller one. This feature permits proficient resource utilization and reduces schedule length. The proposed Figure 9b scheme produces better aggregation that minimizes the total data packets passing through a TDMA cycle. The X-axis shows the number of attributes; the Y-axis presents the average SH of all schemes in bytes. When the number of attributes was 16, FDAS attained an average value of 235, DQN-FATOA obtained an average value of 244, FAJIT obtained an average value of 250, DICA obtained an average schedule length of 275, and that of DICAEXTENSION was 285. FDAS provides improvements of 30%, 10%, 22%, and 5% over FAJIT, DICA, DICA, and DQN-FATOA, respectively.

5.5. Required Number of Transmission Slots

When increased data aggregation occurs, fewer data packets are generated, and fewer transmission slots are required to transmit data. The appropriate data aggregation factor, merging smaller frames with other frames, permits more data to be combined and sent, which simultaneously results in fewer transmissions. The proposed scheme, FDAS, improves the allocation of transmission slots via intelligent parent node selection, efficient data aggregation, and energy preservation by reducing the data packet size. This results in a reduced number of transmission slots required to transmit data. FDAS attained a lower number of transmission slots for all attribute cases. In Figure 10a, the values on the X-axis represent the number of attributes, and the Y-axis represents the number of transmission slots. For 16 attributes, 930, 980, 1000, 1200, and 1100 transmission slots were needed to forward data in FDAS, DQN-FATOA, FAJIT, DICA, and DICA _EXTENSION.
Figure 10. Required number of transmission slots (a) and effect of number of attributes on control overhead (b).

5.6. Effect of Number of Attributes on Control Overhead

The control overhead of node i refers to the total control messages transmitted by that node. In the control phase, when slot and parent selections are performed, control messages are exchanged with neighbors so that a collusion-free procedure is carried out. The control messages consist of a chain of request, reply, schedule, and forbidden. For selecting more slots, more chains of these control messages are exchanged. As control overhead increases, energy consumption also increases. Therefore, to reduce control overhead and minimize the energy consumption factor, slot and parent selections are performed simultaneously during the control phase of FDAS. Fewer selected slots leads to the lesser generation of control messages. The X-axis shows the number of attributes, and the Y-axis presents the control overhead in bytes/second. Figure 10b shows that when the number of attributes increases, control overhead also increases, which shows that attributes have a direct impact on control overhead. For 10 attributes, the control overhead lies in the range of 1000, 10,060, 10,090, 9050, and 9000 for FAJIT, DICA, DICA_EXTENSION, DQN-FATOA, and FDAS.

5.7. Discussion

FDAS was compared with FAJIT, DQN-FATOA, DICA, and DICA_EXTENSION for a complete analysis. The average aggregation is better with FDAS as it selects a parent node with the same attribute, which takes less time to aggregate and transmit. DQN-FATOA adjusts frame size for data aggregation and aggregates small data packets to use resources effectively. FAJIT performs well when the number of attributes is small, but when the variation in attributes is high, FAJIT’s performance starts dropping and reaches the same level as that of DICA and DICA_EXTENSION. Fuzzy logic is employed when the number of dynamic neighbors is the same, and the most crucial factors are selected to determine a suitable parent node, which reduces energy utilization in the control phase in the proposed scheme. However, in DICA and DICA_EXTENSION, no fuzzification is performed. Though a fuzzy system is considered in FAJIT, no suitable input functions are described to overcome this issue. Slots and parents are selected simultaneously in FDAS to lessen the control overhead. The control overhead is low in DQN-FATOA due to task offloading as required in real-time scenarios, which overcomes the necessity of transmitting control signals frequently. As a result, the number of control messages between nodes and the hub is minimized, which reduces the overhead. As a whole, the network can effectively transmit and process data without unnecessary control messages. FAJIT also performs better than the other two schemes in selecting fewer slots because of its better aggregation. During the data phase, in DQN-FATOA, no node is overburdened and data are effectively handled, so energy consumption remains economical. In FAJIT, energy consumption is high when the number of attributes increasesbecause selecting a parent of the same type becomes difficult. In contrast, DICA and DICA_EXTENSION select the nearest node as the parent node. The parent node chosen is at the same or one level distant from the sensor node. This results in lower energy consumption in the data phase. In FDAS, the aggregated data contain duplicate data that fall in the normal range; they are not transmitted in their full form of 32 or 16 bits. Instead, a Boolean zero digit is transmitted, considerably reducing energy consumption; even if the types of nodes increase or the environment becomes more complex, FDAS maintains better performance. Overall, FDAS and DQN-FATOA perform well on most of the metrics. FAJIT maintains good performance, but its energy consumption is slightly higher during the data phase. At the same time, DICA and DICA_EXTENSION have a longer schedule length, are highly affected by environment complexity, and are unsuitable for use in resource-constrained scenarios.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, a scheme, FDAS, that removes duplicate values in the data generated by sensors in a heterogeneous environment was presented. Duplicate data increase the size of the data packet; reduce the aggregation factor, ultimately increasing the transmission slots required for sending data; and increase control overhead, reducing network lifetime and degrading the overall performance of the WSN. By considering this issue, we developed FDAS to convert duplicate data with a Boolean digit of zero, significantly improving heterogeneous networks. In addition, better parent node selection is performed by including the most crucial parameters in the FIS system, which enhances the efficiency of FDAS. The scheme was simulated using NS 2.35, and the results showed that the proposed method has better performance, as its energy utilization is lower in both phases, overhead is low in all attribute scenarios, transmission slots usage is decreased, and SH is reduced compared with those of FAJIT, DQN-FATOA, DICA, and DICA_EXTENSION. In the near future, the first node death (FND), half node death (HND), and last node death (LND) of the proposed scheme will be examined, along with fuzzy logic and other algorithms, such as the dragonfly algorithm (DA), to aggregate data from trees to further enhance the durability of heterogeneous WSNs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.T. and M.N.U.K.; data curation, M.N.U.K. and Z.T.; funding acquisition, Z.T. and W.C.; investigation, Z.T., W.C. and M.N.U.K.; methodology, Z.T., W.C., A.U. and M.N.U.K.; project administration, M.N.U.K., Y.A.A., A.U. and W.P.; software, M.N.U.K., Y.A.A., A.U. and W.P.; supervision, Z.T. and W.C.; validation, M.N.U.K. and Z.T.; visualization, M.N.U.K., Y.A.A. and W.P.; writing—original draft, Z.T. and M.N.U.K.; writing—review and editing, M.N.U.K., Z.T., W.C., Y.A.A., W.P. and A.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province under grant 2021GXNSFAA220010.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Guilin University of Electronic Technology for their valuable support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Das, A.K.; Zeadally, S.; He, D. Taxonomy and analysis of security protocols for Internet of Things. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 10, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pourghebleh, B.; Navimipour, N.J. Data aggregation mechanisms in the Internet of things: A systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 97, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rahim, A.; Zhong, Y.; Ahmad, T.; Ahmad, S.; Pławiak, P.; Hammad, M. Enhancing Smart Home Security: Anomaly Detection and Face Recognition in Smart Home IoT Devices Using Logit-Boosted CNN Models. Sensors 2023, 23, 6979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahmad, T.; Wu, J. SDIGRU: Spatial and deep features integration using multilayer gated recurrent unit for human activity recognition. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2023, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmad, T.; Wu, J.; Alwageed, H.S.; Khan, F.; Khan, J.; Lee, Y. Human Activity Recognition Based on Deep-Temporal Learning Using Convolution Neural Networks Features and Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit With Features Selection. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 33148–33159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aazam, M.; Zeadally, S.; Harras, K.A. Fog computing architecture, evaluation, and future research directions. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2018, 56, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mahmud, R.; Koch, F.L.; Buyya, R. Cloud-fog interoperability in IoT-enabled healthcare solutions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, Varanasi, India, 4–7 January 2018; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rubí, J.N.S.; Gondim, P.R.L. IoMT platform for pervasive healthcare data aggregation, processing, and sharing based on OneM2M and OpenEHR. Sensors 2019, 19, 4283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gatouillat, A.; Badr, Y.; Massot, B.; Sejdić, E. Internet of medical things: A review of recent contributions dealing with cyber-physical systems in medicine. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 3810–3822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nazir, T.; Banday, M.T. Green Internet of Things: A survey of enabling techniques. In Proceedings of the I2018 International Conference on Automation and Computational Engineering (ICACE), Greater Noida, India, 3–4 October 2018; Volume 5, pp. 197–202. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhu, C.; Leung, V.C.; Shu, L.; Ngai, E.C.H. Green internet of things for smart world. IEEE Access 2015, 3, 2151–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khezr, S.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Yassine, A.; Benlamri, R. Blockchain technology in healthcare: A comprehensive review and directions for future research. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Usak, M.; Kubiatko, M.; Shabbir, M.S.; Viktorovna Dudnik, O.; Jermsittiparsert, K.; Rajabion, L. Health care service delivery based on the Internet of things: A systematic and comprehensive study. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2020, 33, e4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, T. Securing on-body IoT devices by exploiting creeping wave propagation. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2018, 36, 696–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wouda, H.P.H. Blockchain in Office Building Transactions; Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 29. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubey, H.; Monteiro, A.; Constant, N.; Abtahi, M.; Borthakur, D.; Mahler, L.; Sun, Y.; Yang, Q.; Akbar, U.; Mankodiya, K. Fog computing in medical internet-of-things: Architecture, implementation, and applications. In Handbook of Large-Scale Distributed Computing in Smart Healthcare; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 281–321. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kadhim, K.T.; Alsahlany, A.M.; Wadi, S.M.; Kadhum, H.T. An overview of patient’s health status monitoring system based on internet of things (IoT). In Handbook of Large-Scale Distributed Computing in Smart Healthcare; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; Volume 114, pp. 2235–2262. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dey, N.; Ashour, A.S.; Shi, F.; Fong, S.J.; Tavares, J.M.R. Medical cyber-physical systems: A survey. In Handbook of Large-Scale Distributed Computing in Smart Healthcare; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; Volume 42, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tahir, S.; Bakhsh, S.T.; Abulkhair, M.; Alassafi, M.O. An energy-efficient fog-to-cloud Internet of Medical Things architecture. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2019, 15, 1550147719851977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Okay, F.Y.; Ozdemir, S. A secure data aggregation protocol for fog computing based smart grids. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Compatibility, Power Electronics and Power Engineering (CPE-POWERENG 2018), Doha, Qatar, 10–12 April 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lo’ai, A.T.; Mehmood, R.; Benkhlifa, E.; Song, H. Mobile cloud computing model and big data analysis for healthcare applications. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 6171–6180. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mouradian, C.; Naboulsi, D.; Yangui, S.; Glitho, R.H.; Morrow, M.J.; Polakos, P.A. A comprehensive survey on fog computing: State-of-the-art and research challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 20, 416–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jan, S.U.; Lee, Y.D.; Shin, J.; Koo, I. Sensor fault classification based on support vector machine and statistical time-domain features. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 8682–8690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yuehong, Y.I.N.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, X.; Fan, Y. The internet of things in healthcare: An overview. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2016, 1, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dantu, R.; Dissanayake, I.; Nerur, S. Exploratory analysis of internet of things (IoT) in healthcare: A topic modelling & co-citation approaches. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2021, 38, 62–78. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu, P.; Dhelim, S.; Ning, H.; Qiu, T. Survey on fog computing: Architecture, key technologies, applications and open issues. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017, 98, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Puliafito, C.; Mingozzi, E.; Longo, F.; Puliafito, A.; Rana, O. Fog computing for the internet of things: A survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019, 19, 1–41. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kshetri, N. Privacy and security issues in cloud computing: The role of institutions and institutional evolution. Telecommun. Policy 2013, 37, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Engineer, M.; Tusha, R.; Shah, A.; Adhvaryu, K. Insight into the importance of fog computing in Internet of Medical Things (IoMT). In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Recent Advances in Energy-efficient Computing and Communication (ICRAECC), Nagercoil, India, 7–8 March 2019; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tang, W.; Ren, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, X. Efficient and privacy-preserving fog-assisted health data sharing scheme. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. TIST 2019, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, C.; Tian, P.; Choo, K.K.R. Enabling privacy-assured fog-based data aggregation in E-healthcare systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 17, 1948–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sicari, S.; Rizzardi, A.; Grieco, L.A.; Coen-Porisini, A. Security, privacy and trust in Internet of Things: The road ahead. Comput. Netw. 2015, 76, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, P.; Zhang, N.; Zhang, S.; Yang, K.; Yu, L.; Shen, X. Identifying the most valuable workers in fog-assisted spatial crowdsourcing. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 1193–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shen, J.; Chang, S.; Shen, J.; Liu, Q.; Sun, X. A lightweight multi-layer authentication protocol for wireless body area networks. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 78, 956–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hou, J.; Qu, L.; Shi, W. A survey on internet of things security from data perspectives. Comput. Netw. 2019, 148, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ahmadi, H.; Arji, G.; Shahmoradi, L.; Safdari, R.; Nilashi, M.; Alizadeh, M. The application of internet of things in healthcare: A systematic literature review and classification. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2019, 18, 837–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kraemer, F.A.; Braten, A.E.; Tamkittikhun, N.; Palma, D. Fog computing in healthcare—A review and discussion. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 9206–9222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Suhardi, R.A. A survey of security aspects for Internet of Things in healthcare. In Information Science and Applications (ICISA); Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 1237–1247. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lin, H.; Yan, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L. A survey on network security-related data collection technologies, special section on internet of things big datatrust management. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 18345–18365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, H.; Shi, Y.; Qiu, B. Applying catastrophe progression method to evaluate the service quality of cold chain logistics. In Complex Intelligent Systems; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kulkarni, R.V.; Förster, A.; Venayagamoorthy, G.K. Computational Intelligence in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2011, 1, 68–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sarobin, M.V.R.; Ganesan, R. Swarm intelligence in wireless sensor networks: A survey. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2015, 101, 773–807. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lin, C.; Wu, G.; Xia, F.; Li, M.; Yao, L.; Pei, Z. Energy efficient ant colony algorithms for data aggregation in wireless sensor networks. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 2012, 78, 1686–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hoang, D.C.; Kumar, R.; Panda, S.K. Optimal data aggregation tree in wireless sensor networks based on intelligent water drops algorithm. IET Wirel. Sens. Syst. 2012, 2, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Qiu, L.; Zhang, D.; Tian, Y.; Al-Nabhan, N. Deep learning-based algorithm for vehicle detection in intelligent transportation systems. J. Supercomput. 2021, 77, 11083–11098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chang, W.L.; Zeng, D.; Chen, R.C.; Guo, S. An artificial bee colony algorithm for data collection path planning in sparse wireless sensor networks. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2015, 6, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Maas, A.L.; Hannun, A.Y.; Ng, A.Y. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2013, 30, 3. [Google Scholar]
  48. Abirami, T.; Anandamurugan, S. Data aggregation in wireless sensor network using shuffled frog algorithm. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2016, 90, 537–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, C.; Yang, N. CoDA: Collaborative Data Aggregation in Emerging Sensor Networks Using Bio-Level Voronoi Diagrams. Sensors 2022, 16, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sajedi, S.N.; Maadani, M.; Nesari Moghadam, M. F-LEACH: A fuzzy-based data aggregation scheme for healthcare IoT systems. J. Supercomput. 2022, 78, 1030–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abid, B.; Nguyen, T.T.; Seba, H. New data aggregation approach for time-constrained wireless sensor networks. J. Supercomput. 2015, 71, 1678–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Singh, S. An energy aware clustering and data gathering technique based on nature inspired optimization in WSNs. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2020, 12, 1357–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Babu, V.; Kumar, C.V.; Parthiban, S.; Padmavathi, U.; Rahman, M.Z.U. AE-LEACH: An Incremental Clustering Approach for Reducing the Energy Consumption in WSN. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2022, 93, 104602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amutha, J.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, S.K. An energy efficient cluster based hybrid optimization algorithm with static sink and mobile sink node for Wireless Sensor Networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 203, 1117334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yan, X.; Huang, C.; Gan, J.; Wu, X. Game theory-based energy-efficient clustering algorithm for wireless sensor networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 22, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Shukla, P.; Sharma, V.; Pughat, A. Data aggregation in wireless sensor networks. In Energy-Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 165–178. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sert, S.A.; Alchihabi, A.; Yazici, A. A two-tier distributed fuzzy logic based protocol for efficient data aggregation in multihop wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 26, 3615–3629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sanjay Gandhi, G.; Vikas, K.; Ratnam, V.; Suresh Babu, K. Grid clustering and fuzzy reinforcement-learning based energy-efficient data aggregation scheme for distributed WSN. IET Commun. 2020, 14, 2840–2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yousefpoor, E.; Barati, H.; Barati, A. A hierarchical secure data aggregation method using the dragonfly algorithm in wireless sensor networks. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021, 14, 1917–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mehmood, G.; Khan, M.Z.; Bashir, A.K.; Al-Otaibi, Y.D.; Khan, S. An Efficient QoS-Based Multi-Path Routing Scheme for Smart Healthcare Monitoring in Wireless Body Area Networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2023, 109, 108517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Javaheri, D.; Lalbakhsh, P.; Gorgin, S.; Lee, J.A.; Masdari, M. A new energy-efficient and temperature-aware routing protocol based on fuzzy logic for multi-WBANs. Ad Hoc Netw. 2023, 139, 103042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Misra, S.; Pal, S.; Deb, P.K.; Gupta, E. KEdge: Fuzzy-Based Multi-AI Model Coalescence Solution for Mobile Healthcare System. IEEE Syst. J. 2023, 17, 1721–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yuan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Feng, C.; Cui, Y.; Garg, S.; Kaddoum, G.; Yu, K. A DQN-Based Frame Aggregation and Task Offloading Approach for Edge-Enabled IoMT. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 2023, 10, 1339–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Raja Basha, A.; Yaashuwanth, C. Optimal partial aggregation based energy delay compromise technique for wireless sensor network. IETE J. Res. 2019, 65, 855–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Raj, P.P.; Khedr, A.M.; Aghbari, Z.A. Data gathering via mobile sink in WSNs using game theory and enhanced ant colony optimization. Wirel. Netw. 2020, 26, 2983–2998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vasavada, T.M. Distributed TDMA Scheduling in Tree Based Wireless Sensor Networks with Multiple Data Attributes and Multiple Sinks. Ph.D. Thesis, Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology, Gandhinagar, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  67. Fanian, F.; Rafsanjani, M.K. A new fuzzy multi-hop clustering protocol with automatic rule tuning for wireless sensor networks. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 89, 106115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.