Figure 1:
System architecture of the proposed DeSci-driven lightweight hybrid blockchain framework for privacy-preserving and incentive-aware decentralized healthcare research.
Table 2.
Groth16 zk-SNARK parameters for the evaluated access policy circuits (2,000–5,000 gates).
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Proving key size (pk) | 8–18 MB |
| Verification key size (vk) | ~1 KB (constant) |
| Proof size | 192 bytes (constant, independent of circuit size) |
| Proof generation time (client-side) | 80–200 ms |
| On-chain verification time | ~5 ms (3 pairing operations) |
| Trusted setup | One-time per circuit (Powers of Tau ceremony) |
Figure 2.
DAO governance proposal lifecycle state machine.
Figure 3.
End-to-end workflow of the proposed DeSci-driven framework illustrating healthcare data encryption, on-chain hash registration, off-chain storage, ZKP-based access request verification, smart contract enforcement, and DAO governance-mediated token reward distribution.
Figure 4.
ZKP-based privacy-preserving authentication architecture illustrating off-chain Groth16 zk-SNARK proof generation, on-chain smart contract verification via Verify(vk, π, C), access decision enforcement, and the zero-knowledge guarantee that no credential information is disclosed during the authentication process.
Figure 5.
Latency comparison across different network sizes.
Figure 6.
Throughput comparison of proposed and existing systems.
Table 3.
Transaction latency comparison across network sizes (ms). Lower is better.
| Network Size(Nodes) | Proposed (ms) | MedRec (ms) | FHIRChain (ms) | HealthChain (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 320 | 480 | 510 | 455 |
| 20 | 375 | 628 | 674 | 577 |
| 30 | 465 | 873 | 947 | 779 |
| 40 | 590 | 1,216 | 1,327 | 1,062 |
| 50 | 750 | 1,650 | 1,810 | 1,420 |
Table 4.
Throughput comparison across network sizes (TPS). Higher is better.
| Network Size (Nodes) | Proposed (TPS) | MedRec (TPS) | FHIRChain (TPS) | HealthChain (TPS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 145 | 85 | 78 | 92 |
| 20 | 168 | 98 | 89 | 107 |
| 30 | 185 | 108 | 97 | 118 |
| 40 | 198 | 115 | 103 | 126 |
| 50 | 210 | 130 | 118 | 138 |
Table 5.
Computational cost comparison across network sizes (AU). Lower is better.
| Network Size (Nodes) | Proposed (AU) | MedRec (AU) | FHIRChain (AU) | HealthChain (AU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 112 | 198 | 210 | 185 |
| 20 | 428 | 780 | 820 | 724 |
| 30 | 952 | 1,742 | 1,830 | 1,615 |
| 40 | 1,684 | 3,088 | 3,240 | 2,860 |
| 50 | 2,612 | 4,812 | 5,050 | 4,460 |
Table 6.
Qualitative feature comparison with existing systems.
| Feature | Proposed | MedRec | FHIRChain | HealthChain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZKP-based Authentication | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| DAO Governance | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Hybrid Consensus | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | Partial |
| Tokenomics Layer | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Formal Security Proofs | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| DeSci Alignment | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Off-chain Storage | ✓ | Partial | ✓ | Partial |
| Simulation Evaluated | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Figure 7.
Computational cost comparison across varying network sizes.