Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38806575›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Modeling security evaluation framework for IoHT-driven systems using integrated decision-making methodology.

Habib Ullah Khan, Yasir Ali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Habib Ullah KhanAccounting and Information Systems, College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. habib.khan@qu.edu.qa.
Yasir AliShahzeb Shaheed Government Degree College Razzar, Swabi, Higher Education Department, Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Funding

Qatar University IRCC 2021-010.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intensification of the Internet of Health Things devices created security concerns due to the limitations of these devices and the nature of the healthcare data. While dealing with the security challenges, several authentication schemes, protocols, processes, and standards have been adopted. Consequently, making the right decision regarding the installation of a secure authentication solution or procedure becomes tricky and challenging due to the large number of security protocols, complexity, and lack of understanding. The major objective of this study is to propose an IoHT-based assessment framework for evaluating and prioritizing authentication schemes in the healthcare domain. Initially, in the proposed work, the security issues related to authentication are collected from the literature and consulting experts' groups. In the second step, features of various authentication schemes are collected under the supervision of an Internet of Things security expert using the Delphi approach. The collected features are used to design suitable criteria for assessment and then Graph Theory and Matrix approach applies for the evaluation of authentication alternatives. Finally, the proposed framework is tested and validated to ensure the results are consistent and accurate by using other multi-criteria decision-making methods. The framework produces promising results such as 93%, 94%, and 95% for precision, accuracy, and recall, respectively in comparison to the existing approaches in this area. The proposed framework can be picked as a guideline by healthcare security experts and stakeholders for the evaluation and decision-making related to authentication issues in IoHT systems.

Indexed as

Authentication security requirementsGTMIoHT assessment frameworkTOPSIS

Identifiers

PMID38806575
PMCPMC11133348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.