Abstract
Internet of Medical Thing (IoMT) is the most emerging era of the Internet of Thing (IoT), which is exponentially gaining researchers’ attention with every passing day because of its wide applicability in Smart Healthcare systems (SHS). Because of the current pandemic situation, it is highly risky for an individual to visit the doctor for every small problem. Hence, using IoMT devices, we can easily monitor our day-to-day health records, and thereby initial precautions can be taken on our own. IoMT is playing a crucial role within the healthcare industry to increase the accuracy, reliability, and productivity of electronic devices. This research work provides an overview of IoMT with emphasis on various enabling techniques used in smart healthcare systems (SHS), such as radio frequency identification (RFID), artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain. We are providing a comparative analysis of various IoMT architectures proposed by several researchers. Also, we have defined various health domains of IoMT, including the analysis of different sensors with their application environment, merits, and demerits. In addition, we have figured out key protocol design challenges, which are to be considered during the implementation of an IoMT network-based smart healthcare system. Considering these challenges, we prepared a comparative study for different data collection techniques that can be used to maintain the accuracy of collected data. In addition, this research work also provides a comprehensive study for maintaining the energy efficiency of an AI-based IoMT framework based on various parameters, such as the amount of energy consumed, packet delivery ratio, battery lifetime, quality of service, power drain, network throughput, delay, and transmission rate. Finally, we have provided different correlation equations for finding the accuracy and efficiency within the IoMT-based healthcare system using artificial intelligence. We have compared different data collection algorithms graphically based on their accuracy and error rate. Similarly, different energy efficiency algorithms are also graphically compared based on their energy consumption and packet loss percentage. We have analyzed our references used in this study, which are graphically represented based on their distribution of publication year and publication avenue.