## 7 Analysis and Results
For different implementation scenarios such as separate node patterns and multiple-node patterns, the cumulative distribution function evaluates the successful means in terms of throughput, which is the quantity of information transfer bits per second relative to the total overhead of authorized information, as shown in Figure 5.  
Figure 5 shows that the obtained successful throughput is significantly smaller than the maximal data cost of 232.4 kbps and 250 kbps at the time of downlink and uplink, respectively, for the proposed narrowband IoT in the literature. This situation arises because of the shorter information of packet length compared to the overhead of the regulated channels, especially the physical control downlink, which requires a large number of repetitions for proper transmission. In the case of uplink, 40% of the allocated resources are protected for physical narrowband channel access (random), and some are protected for narrowband physical (shared channel) patterns with two packets, which degrades the result, whereas the use of multiple nodes improves the packet size and increases the gain in term of throughput. In the case of in-band implementation, performance is degraded significantly compared to a standalone configuration because of LTE regulation. Figure 6 shows the average \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Coupling Loss** & **Renewed** \\ \hline Under 140 dB & One (01) \\ \hline
141–143 dB & Two (02) \\ \hline
144–146 dB & Four (04) \\ \hline
147–149 dB & Eight (08) \\ \hline
150–152 dB & Sixteen (16) \\ \hline
153–155 dB & Thirty-two (32) \\ \hline
156–158 dB & Sixty-four (64) \\ \hline
159–161 dB & One hundred twenty-eight (128) \\ \hline Above 162 dB & 256 used for downlink and 128 for uplink \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Repetition element (category-wise range). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Types of Sensor** & **Data Coverage** & **Size of Information** & **Period** \\ \hline Motion & & Two bytes & Two hours \\ \hline Hear Beat & 0–60 beats/min & One byte & Four to five minutes \\ \hline Blood Pressure & 20–350 mm Hg & Two bytes & Half an hour \\ \hline Temperature (Body) & 23–45 \({}^{\circ}\)C & One byte & Four to five minutes \\ \hline Rate (Respiratory) & 3–50 breaths per min & One byte & Four to five minutes \\ \hline pH (Blood) & 6.6–7.6 units & One byte & Four to five minutes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Sensor types and their corresponding data coverage, length of information and period. quantity of patients that can be included both for multiple and separate nodes in different deployment cases. It was also observed that multiple nodes increase the number of supported patients. This result shows that an increase in packet size minimizes the quantity of information that can be sent per patient, resulting in a lower overhead rate so that more patients can be monitored. Figures 5 and 6 show that with an increase in the size of packets, the constructive throughput also increases. However, such an increase may cause a longer delay, as shown in Figure 7.  
Figure 7 represents the delay for narrowband IoT under different conditions, where delay is the average duration required to finish the transfer with the desired overhead regulated information. It was also observed that with increased packet size, the time required for transmission also increases, resulting in increased delay for every device in the network. However, an increment in packet size improves the overall throughput, enabling more patients per cell to be served. Therefore, it is very clear that the quantity of supported devices, packet size, delay and throughput rely on one another.