Robust Cyber-Physical System Enabled Smart Healthcare Unit Using Blockchain Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting ant timely article. I think it deserves publication and I am recommending accept with minor corrections. But there are some minor issues that require your attention. I list these corrections below as feedback / comments, and I am looking forward to reading the updated version of this article. 

 

- Abstract needs to contain (to include) five main elements: 

1.     Introduction. This is the first part of the abstract, and should be brief and attractive to the reader at the same time. ... (one to two sentences) 

2.     Research significance. This usually answers the question: Why did you do this research? (one to two sentences) 

3.     Methodology. ... (one to two sentences)

4.     Results. ... (one to two sentences)

5.     Brief summary of the conclusions. (one to two sentences)

A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. An abstract is a 150- to 250-word paragraph that provides readers with a quick overview of your work and how the article is organised. It should express your central idea and your key points; it should also suggest any implications or applications of the research you discuss in the paper.

 

- I have finished reading the article and I didn’t see any mention on the risks from these new technologies to healthcare systems. You have done a really good job at reviewing so many articles, but not a single article on cyber risks. There are recent articles on this topic that reviews recent and relevant literature, for example, on the related topic of ‘ethics of shared Covid-19 risks’ - see: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00565-3 and on the related topic of ‘Ethics and Shared Responsibility in Health Policy’ - see: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158355 It would be interesting to see a few sentences review and comparison of your work in relations to these recent studies in related topics.

 

Figure 1 is very interesting, but you didn’t describe the figure. This should be a very easy task, it shouldn't take you longer than 10 min, but you need to do it, for Figure 1, and you need to check all other figures and tables. Such small errors are very noticeable.

 

Author Response

Very interesting ant timely article. I think it deserves publication and I am recommending accept with minor corrections. But there are some minor issues that require your attention. I list these corrections below as feedback / comments, and I am looking forward to reading the updated version of this article. 

 

- Abstract needs to contain (to include) five main elements: 

1. Introduction. This is the first part of the abstract, and should be brief and attractive to the reader at the same time. ... (one to two sentences) 
2. Research significance. This usually answers the question: Why did you do this research? (one to two sentences) 
3. Methodology. ... (one to two sentences)
4. Results. ... (one to two sentences)
5. Brief summary of the conclusions. (one to two sentences)

A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. An abstract is a 150- to 250-word paragraph that provides readers with a quick overview of your work and how the article is organised. It should express your central idea and your key points; it should also suggest any implications or applications of the research you discuss in the paper.

Response: Based on your suggestion, all the points needed to be revised in the abstract  have been considered and modified accordingly.

- I have finished reading the article and I didn’t see any mention on the risks from these new technologies to healthcare systems. You have done a really good job at reviewing so many articles, but not a single article on cyber risks. There are recent articles on this topic that reviews recent and relevant literature, for example, on the related topic of ‘ethics of shared Covid-19 risks’ - see: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00565-3 and on the related topic of ‘Ethics and Shared Responsibility in Health Policy’ - see: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158355 It would be interesting to see a few sentences review and comparison of your work in relations to these recent studies in related topics.

Response: Based on your recommendation a survey has been performed on the given papers and updated in the paper successfully.

 

Figure 1 is very interesting, but you didn’t describe the figure. This should be a very easy task, it shouldn't take you longer than 10 min, but you need to do it, for Figure 1, and you need to check all other figures and tables. Such small errors are very noticeable.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Based on your recommendation, we have described Fig 1 and revised all the figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports an approach that improves the privacy preservation of medical data which is important and provide a good reference for industry. The discussion of the design is clear and the results are well-presented. I would suggest some additional inputs in the conclusion section - given the nature of this work has great value on insurance industry and related to a FinTech (Financial technology) application
References:
1) Yan, T. C., Schulte, P., & Chuen, D. L. K. (2018). InsurTech and FinTech: banking and insurance enablement. Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 1, 249-281.
2) Leong, K., & Sung, A. (2018). FinTech (Financial Technology): what is it and how to use technologies to create business value in fintech way?. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 9(2), 74-78.

Therefore, the authors could mention this work can contribute to related areas and future works could be explored.

Hopefully, above short message could help to improve the value of this work.

Author Response

#Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports an approach that improves the privacy preservation of medical data which is important and provide a good reference for industry. The discussion of the design is clear and the results are well-presented. I would suggest some additional inputs in the conclusion section - given the nature of this work has great value on insurance industry and related to a FinTech (Financial technology) application
References:
1) Yan, T. C., Schulte, P., & Chuen, D. L. K. (2018). InsurTech and FinTech: banking and insurance enablement. Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 1, 249-281.
2) Leong, K., & Sung, A. (2018). FinTech (Financial Technology): what is it and how to use technologies to create business value in fintech way?. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 9(2),74-78.

Therefore, the authors could mention this work can contribute to related areas and future works could be explored.

Hopefully, above short message could help to improve the value of this work.

Response: Based on the given inputs, the suggested works are studied and conclusion is updated with the advised future works.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors considered creating secure, real-time preservation and tamper-proof control of medical data, and to do that, the Bayesian grey filter-based convolution neural network (BGF-CNN) approach is considered to enhance accuracy and reduce time complexity and overhead.b The idea is interesting. However, I have the following concerns. 

 

1. A check on grammatical errors is required.

2. Recent blockchain research are missing. Some are mentioned as follows.

-> "A Patient-Centric Health Information Exchange Framework Using Blockchain Technology," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2169-2176, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2993072.

-> "FBI: A Federated Learning-Based Blockchain-Embedded Data Accumulation Scheme Using Drones for Internet of Things," in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 972-976, May 2022, doi: 10.1109/LWC.2022.3151873. 

3. Add a table for section 2 containing the limitation of existing works. 

4. Highlight your novelty. The contribution is not clear. 

5. Why did the authors specifically consider Ethereum instead of making it general? 

6. Which consensus algorithms were considered? Who will be the miners of the system? A design of the block is required. 

7. Table 3 and Fig. 3 seem redundant representation

8. Please improve the quality of the figures. 

9. A figure for displaying the DL model is required. 

10. Performance graphs regarding DL are missing. 

11. Highlight more the processing for optimizing CNN parameters using GWO-PSO.  

Author Response

#Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors considered creating secure, real-time preservation and tamper-proof control of medical data, and to do that, the Bayesian grey filter-based convolution neural network (BGF-CNN) approach is considered to enhance accuracy and reduce time complexity and overhead.b The idea is interesting. However, I have the following concerns. 

 

1. A check on grammatical errors is required.

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have revised the entire paper for grammatical errors and updated the paper appropriately.

2. Recent blockchain research are missing. Some are mentioned as follows.

-> "A Patient-Centric Health Information Exchange Framework Using Blockchain Technology," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2169-2176, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2993072.

-> "FBI: A Federated Learning-Based Blockchain-Embedded Data Accumulation Scheme Using Drones for Internet of Things," in IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 972-976, May 2022, doi: 10.1109/LWC.2022.3151873. 

Response: Based on your suggestion, research has been conducted on the above areas and updated in the paper successfully.

3. Add a table for section 2 containing the limitation of existing works. 

Response: Based on your recommendation, limitations of the existing works are updated in table 1 of section 2.

4. Highlight your novelty. The contribution is not clear. 

Response:Thank you for your valuable comment, we have highlighted the novelty of work in the proposed methodology section.

5. Why did the authors specifically consider Ethereum instead of making it general? 

Response: Based on your suggestion, the reason for considering Ethereum instead of general block chain is included in Section 3

6. Which consensus algorithms were considered? Who will be the miners of the system? A design of the block is required. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In the proposed work we have utilized open source ethereum based block chain technology and the miners will be computer running softwares which are default.

7. Table 3 and Fig. 4 seem redundant representation

Response: Thankyou for your valuable comment. Fig 4 is the graphical representation of Table 3 which helps novel readers in easy visualization.

8. Please improve the quality of the figures. 

Response: Based on your suggestion, all the figures have been revised and updated successfully.

9. A figure for displaying the DL model is required. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Fig 2 represents the DL model for the proposed methodology.

10. Performance graphs regarding DL are missing. 

Response: Based on your inputs, Fig 8 representing performance graphs regarding DL models is added in section 4.

11. Highlight more the processing for optimizing CNN parameters using GWO-PSO.  

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. CNN parameters optimization using GWO-PSO technique in detail has been updated in the paper successfully.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no further concerns.