# An Efficient MAC Protocol for Blockchain-Enabled Patient Monitoring in a Vehicular Network
## 4 Results and Analysis
### Case 1  
In this scenario, the total slots requirements are less than the available slots in each session. Our proposed protocol shrinks the session by reducing the slot size by following data requirements and then dividing each slot for the efficient allocation of slots to nodes in each session. The slot size will be different for every session.  
In Figure 7, successful nodes per session of the proposed protocol and BS-MAC are compared. A successful node refers to the node which can transmit all the data successfully to the cluster head within a session. There is a total of 10 sessions simulated with a different number of nodes per session. All the nodes in each session succeeded in both protocols because the total slots requests are less than the available slots.  
In Figure 8, the total amount of data transmitted in each session of the proposed protocol and BS-MAC is compared. There is a total of 10 sessions simulated with different numbers of nodes per session. Both BS-MAC and the proposed protocol allow all the nodes in each session to transmit all the data because all the nodes have less data than the session capacity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Simulation Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Number of patient sensor nodes & 5–15 \\ \hline Network size & 100 m \(\times\) 100 m \\ \hline Data rate & 250 kbps \\ \hline Initial slot capacity (Bytes) & 2000 \\ \hline Initial data slot duration (s) & 0.0833 \\ \hline Data traffic per session for case 1 (KB) & 6–70 \\ \hline Data traffic per session for case 2 (KB) & 30–120 \\ \hline Number of sessions & 10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Simulation Parameters.  
Figure 7: Successful vehicles in transmitting their data.  
In Figure 9, the channel utilization of proposed and BS-MAC protocols are compared for a session. There is 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 because in this case, data are less than the total session capacity, and the proposed protocol reduced the session by shrinking the slot size by following data slots requests. The proposed protocol is more adaptable than BS-MAC because it divides the shrink slots by different numbers in every session according to slot requests. Whereas, in BS-MAC, data slots are divided by 10 in every session.  
In Figure 10, the data transmission time of both proposed and BS-MAC protocols is compared in the case when the slots requests are less than the available slots. There are a total of 10 sessions simulated with a different number of nodes per session. Results show that the data transmission time for each session in the proposed protocol is far less than the BS-MAC protocol, because in this case, data are less than the total session capacity, and the proposed protocol reduced the session by shrinking the slot size by following data slots requests.  
Figure 8: Data transmission in each session (Case I).  
Figure 9: Channel utilization comparison of proposed protocol (Case I).