Federated Learning and Differential Privacy for Medical Image Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> The artificial intelligence revolution has been spurred forward by the availability of large-scale datasets. In contrast, the paucity of large-scale medical datasets hinders the application of machine learning in healthcare. The lack of publicly available multi-centric and diverse datasets mainly stems from confidentiality and privacy concerns around sharing medical data. To demonstrate a feasible path forward in medical image imaging, we conduct a case study of applying a differentially private federated learning framework for analysis of histopathology images, the largest and perhaps most complex medical images. We study the effects of IID and non-IID distributions along with the number of healthcare providers, i.e., hospitals and clinics, and the individual dataset sizes, using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset, a public repository, to simulate a distributed environment. We empirically compare the performance of private, distributed training to conventional training and demonstrate that distributed training can achieve similar performance with strong privacy guarantees. We also study the effect of different source domains for histopathology images by evaluating the performance using external validation. Our work indicates that differentially private federated learning is a viable and reliable framework for the collaborative development of machine learning models in medical image analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.365 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it