ArticlePloS one2024
TUBER: Time-aware UAV-based energy-efficient reconfigurable routing scheme for smart wireless livestock sensor network.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is a follow-up to a recent work by the authors on recoverable UAV-based energy-efficient reconfigurable routing (RUBER) scheme for addressing sensor node and route failure issues in smart wireless livestock sensor networks. Time complexity and processing cost issues connected to the RUBER scheme are consequently treated in this article by proffering a time-aware UAV-based energy-efficient reconfigurable routing (TUBER) scheme. TUBER scheme employs a synchronized clustering-with-backup strategy, a minimum-hop neighborhood recovery mechanism, and a redundancy minimization technique. Comparative network performance of TUBER was investigated and evaluated with respect to RUBER and UAV-based energy-efficient reconfigurable routing (UBER) schemes. The metrics adopted for this comparative performance analysis are Cluster Survival Ratio (CSR), Network Stability (NST), Energy Dissipation Ratio (EDR), Network Coverage (COV), Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR), Fault Tolerance Index (FTI), Load Balancing Ratio (LBR), Routing Overhead (ROH), Average Routing Delay (ARD), Failure Detection Ratio (FDR), and Failure Recovery Ratio (FRR). With reference to best-obtained values, TUBER demonstrated improvements of 36.25%, 24.81%, 34.53%, 15.65%, 38.32%, 61.07%, 31.66%, 63.20%, 68.96%, 66.19%, and 78.63% over RUBER and UBER in terms of CSR, NST, EDR, COV, PDR, FTI, LBR, ROH, ARD, FDR, and FRR, respectively. These experimental results confirmed the relative effectiveness of TUBER against the compared routing schemes.
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.