Patient Data Prioritization in the Cross-Layer Designs of Wireless Body Area Network

Table 5

Summary of various schemes discussed in cross-layered design.

Protocol	Identified problems	Patient data classes	Mobility	Topology	Average delay	PDR	Energy consumption	Limitation(s)
WASP; (2006)	Intrabody communication, single-hops requiring more energy, throughput of packets, and 6-bit address	Not considered	No	Multihops	320 milliseconds	95%	High	No authentication provided for a new node. 6-bit address is not enough for scalable network. ACK has limited definitions and does not include information about damage frame. Node can leave the network without informing the network.
CICADA; (2007)	High energy consumption, path allocation between various nodes, and joining or leaving nodes in network	Not considered	Yes	Multihops	<0.32 milliseconds	N/A	Medium	Disjoining of the child/parent node waits for more than 2 consecutive cycles which wastes the energy and bandwidth of other nodes. New child/parent can join network without authentication. Not suitable for patient data.
TICOSS; (2007)	802.15.4 uses single-hop, packet collision due to the overlapping area, hidden-node problem, and high energy consumption	Considered	Yes	Multihops	N/A	Above 88%	Low	Not focused on the high-temperature routes. Regarding security issues, node/parent leaves the network without information. The V-table creates overheads for nodes.
QoS-aware based routing framework; (2007)	Providing priority based services to the high priority patient data	Not considered	Yes	Mesh	N/A	60%	High	It consumes a high amount of energy of nodes during exchange of various information to other nodes which drops the patient data. This scheme has also a drawback of not considering high delay and data reliability.
Biocomm and Biocomm-D (2009)	Reliable path, temperature, energy consumption, and; preventing network from data congestion	High priority data	No	Depending on the node’s temperature	Average	85%	Medium	Delay noticed due to the overheads of the control messages CMI, it verifies energy and temperature of the entire path which requires more delay and is not acceptable for high priority data.
Adaptive routing and bandwidth allocation protocol (2012)	Routing, energy, and QoS	Emergency and nonemergency data	No	Mesh	High	70%	High	Not suitable for emergency data due to its waits for path selection and verifying the residential energy of the entire path. A high delay noticed for emergency and nonemergency data.
P-ARQ (2013)	Energy	Considered only	No	Star	N/A	N/A	Low	No priority defined between emergency and nonemergency vital signs of the patient.
CL-JS; (2013)	Reasons of frame failure and retransmission	Not considered	No	Star	High	80%	High	More energy consumes of sensors during retransmission of the frames. Not suitable for patient data due to high delay.
Reverse Tree Route Configuration (2013)	QoS, reliable path, and energy	EM, DS, and GM	No	Mesh (random)	High	Above 70%	High	Preempts DS and GM data for emergency data in which sensors consume more energy. The high delay has been noticed during preemption of other sensor data for emergency sensor data.
RE-ATTEMPT (2014)	Calculation of the distance from source to destination, linkage of temperature and energy consumption	Normal and emergency data	No	Star and Mesh topology depending on the node’s temperature	Average	Above 80%	High	The high priority data node is far away from the sink; then, that node can send data to the intermediate nodes if intermediate nodes are active; otherwise, it must send it directly to the sink. High energy consumption and the packet drop when the sink is very far away.
ZEQoS (2014)	End-to-end delay, energy and data reliability, and priority-basis slots allocation	OP, DSP, and RSP data	Yes	Multihops	<2.5% milliseconds	Almost 95%	Low	Delay noticed during data transmission due to RTS, CTS activities, and long header designed for nodes.
TMQoS (2014)	Delay, reliable routes, and temperature of the sensors	C1, C2, C3, and C4	No	Mesh	Low	N/A	High	High energy consumption of the sensors to verify the temperature, delay, and reliable paths due to which high delay has been faced. Lots of controls have been used for sensor. This is a drawback for emergency data to verify them before data transmission.
COMR (2014)	Energy consumption, PDR, and end-to-end delay	Not considered	No	Mesh	High	Low	High	The proposed protocol tried to consume minimum energy of nodes but due to timer, it has consumed maximum energy. The PDR and end-to-end cannot be measured due to not considering of the patient data.
ARBA (2015)	Energy, bandwidth allocation to high priority data	High priority and low priority data	No	Extended star topology	High	65%	High	The proposed protocol consumes a high amount of energy of nodes during the selection of intermediate nodes for data transmission. Moreover, this protocol preempts low priority data on the arrival of high priority data which degrades the network performance in terms of low data reliability, high delay and high energy consumption.
TLQoS (2015)	Hotspot nodes, reliability, delay, and energy consumption	Cr, Dc, Rc, and Rg	Yes	Mesh	Average	75%	High	The proposed protocol selects shortest and minimum temperature-rise path for transmitting patient data but, during verification of each module status, degrades the performance of network in terms of high delay and high energy consumption of sensors.