# An Efficient MAC Protocol for Blockchain-Enabled Patient Monitoring in a Vehicular Network
## 4 Results and Analysis
### Case 2  
In this case, the total slot requirements are more than the total available slots in all ten sessions. Our proposed algorithm added additional slots of the same slot size and extended each session to entertain all the source nodes.  
In Figure 11, successful nodes per session of the proposed protocol and BS-MAC for case II are compared. A successful node refers to the node which can transmit all the data successfully to the cluster head in the current session. There are a total of 10 sessions simulated with a different number of nodes per session. Results show that the proposed protocol entertained all the nodes of each session whereas, in BS-MAC, only a few nodes can transmit data successfully.  
In Figure 12, the total amount of data transmitted in each session of the proposed protocol and BS-MAC is compared. There are a total of 10 sessions simulated with a different number of nodes per session. Results show that more data are transmitted in the proposed protocol as compared to BS-MAC. The proposed protocol extended each session by following the data requirements of nodes and allowing the nodes to transmit all the data in the current session.  
Figure 11: Successful vehicles in transmitting their data (Case 2).  
Figure 10: Data transmission time comparison of proposed protocol (Case I).  
In Figure 13, the channel utilization of proposed and BS-MAC protocols are compared for each session in the case when the total requested slots is more than the available slots. There are a total of 10 sessions simulated with a different number of nodes per session. Results show that channel utilization of the proposed protocol is far better than BS-MAC.  
In Figure 14, the data transmission time of the proposed scheme is compared with the other two schemes when the slots requests are less than the available slots. Results show that the data transmission time for each session in the proposed protocol is more than the other two competitors. This is due to the increased slots offered in the proposed scheme to accommodate more data-requesting vehicular nodes. An increase in time slots results in increased session duration and hence results in more data-transmitting time of nodes. In comparison, BS-MAC and FCFS have a fixed session duration and do not accommodate more data-requesting nodes and consequently have fewer data-transmitting times, as non-accommodating nodes are not included in the results.  
The performance of the proposed MAC is further analyzed by following its successful transmission of critical patient data as compared to the normal patient data. For a fair comparison, the session duration of both BS-MAC and FCFS is fixed. The results shown in Figure 15 verify that for a fixed session length, our proposed scheme accommodates more high-risk patients' data blocks as compared to the other two schemes by compromising the medium-risk and low-risk patients' data.  
Figure 12: Data transmit per session of proposed protocol (Case 2).  
Figure 13: Channel utilization comparison of the proposed protocol (Case 2).  
The results shown in Figure 16 elaborate the same results in terms of percentage with a varying number of the patients' data blocks in each session. It is evident from the results that the proposed scheme accommodates the maximum of the high-risk patients' data as compared to the other two schemes by compromising the medium-risk and low-risk patients' data as compared to the other two schemes for fixed session length.  
Figure 14: Data transmission time comparison of proposed protocol (Case 2).  
Figure 15: Successful transmission of priority data for a varying number of sessions.