MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226461837 · doi:10.1145/3501296

Federated Learning for Smart Healthcare: A Survey

2022· review· en· W4226461837 on OpenAlexafffund
Dinh C. Nguyen, Quoc‐Viet Pham, Pubudu N. Pathirana, Ming Ding, Aruna Seneviratne, Zihuai Lin, Octavia A. Dobre, Won–Joo Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsHealth careComputer scienceKey (lock)ScalabilityData scienceData sharingThe InternetBig dataKnowledge managementComputer securityWorld Wide WebDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in communication technologies and the Internet-of-Medical-Things (IOMT) have transformed smart healthcare enabled by artificial intelligence (AI). Traditionally, AI techniques require centralized data collection and processing that may be infeasible in realistic healthcare scenarios due to the high scalability of modern healthcare networks and growing data privacy concerns. Federated Learning (FL), as an emerging distributed collaborative AI paradigm, is particularly attractive for smart healthcare, by coordinating multiple clients (e.g., hospitals) to perform AI training without sharing raw data. Accordingly, we provide a comprehensive survey on the use of FL in smart healthcare. First, we present the recent advances in FL, the motivations, and the requirements of using FL in smart healthcare. The recent FL designs for smart healthcare are then discussed, ranging from resource-aware FL, secure and privacy-aware FL to incentive FL and personalized FL. Subsequently, we provide a state-of-the-art review on the emerging applications of FL in key healthcare domains, including health data management, remote health monitoring, medical imaging, and COVID-19 detection. Several recent FL-based smart healthcare projects are analyzed, and the key lessons learned from the survey are also highlighted. Finally, we discuss interesting research challenges and possible directions for future FL research in smart healthcare.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations733
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207