ArticleHeliyon2021
Evaluation of the performance of a collaborative proposal of multiple access in cognitive radio networks.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive radio networks (CRN) allow for an increase in spectral efficiency and performance of today's wireless networks. Currently, multiple proposals exist in the area of spectral decision-making and mobility; however, very few evaluate the impact of collaboration between secondary users and the performance of spectrum access by many secondary users. Unlike existing works, this article provides a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the performance of CRN taking into account access to the spectrum simultaneously by multiple users and decision making based on collaboration through the exchange of information between nearby secondary users. This proposal is developed through the implementation of four modules: Input Module, Multi-user Module, Collaborative module and Decision-making module, where the results are evaluated comparatively through the handoff rate generated with two multicriteria techniques: Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) and Multi-Criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution (VIKOR). The evaluation is carried out taking into account three levels of collaboration, three multi-user access scenarios, and two multi-criteria techniques for a total of 18 simulation scenarios. The results obtained show the importance of implementing collaboration strategies, as for multi-user access, the number of handoffs increases as the number of serial users increases. TOPSIS presented the best results in 76 % of the analyzed cases where VIKOR generated a smaller number of handoffs; TOPSIS maintained good performance with differences not exceeding 90 handoffs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.