ReviewCureus2024
Regulatory Challenges and Frameworks for Fog Computing in Healthcare.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Compliance with HIPAA and GDPR in Healthcare: A Blockchain-Based Strategy for Secure Data Exchange in Clinical Research Involving Private Health Information.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Challenges and Progress in General Data Protection Regulation Implementation in Romanian Public Healthcare.Cureus · 2025Article
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
The integration of fog computing into healthcare promises significant advancements in real-time data analytics and patient care by decentralizing data processing closer to the source. This shift, however, introduces complex regulatory, privacy, and security challenges that are not adequately addressed by existing frameworks designed for centralized systems. The distributed nature of fog computing complicates the uniform application of security measures and compliance with diverse international regulations, raising concerns about data privacy, security vulnerabilities, and legal accountability. This review explores these challenges in depth, discussing the implications of fog computing's decentralized architecture for data privacy, the difficulties in achieving consistent security across dispersed nodes, and the complexities of ensuring compliance in multi-jurisdictional environments. It also examines specific regulatory frameworks, including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) in the United States, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, and emerging laws in Asia and Brazil, highlighting the gaps and the need for regulatory evolution to better accommodate the nuances of fog computing. The review advocates for a proactive regulatory approach, emphasizing the development of specific guidelines, international collaboration, and public-private partnerships to enhance compliance and support innovation. By embedding privacy and security by design and leveraging advanced technologies, healthcare providers can navigate the regulatory landscape effectively, ensuring that fog computing realizes its full potential as a transformative healthcare technology without compromising patient trust or data integrity.
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.