Federated Quality Profiling: A quality evaluation of patient monitoring at the Edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of patients involves collecting and analyzing sensory data from a multitude of sources. To overcome communication overhead, ensure data privacy and security, reduce data loss, and maintain efficient resource usage the processing and analytics are moved close to where the data is located (e.g., the Edge). Data quality (DQ) can be degraded because of imprecise or malfunctioning sensors, dynamic changes in the environment, transmission failures, or delays. Therefore, can mislead clinical judgments and cause incorrect actions, if not managed properly. In this paper, inspired by Federated Learning (FL), we propose a novel approach using Federated Data Quality (FDQ) Profiling to assess DQ at the edge considering a global quality profile aggregated based on local profiles. We conducted experiments to evaluate the effect of FDQ profiling on DQ improvement considering the assessment of outlier detection and unbalanced data. The results demonstrated that the improved DQ has a positive impact on the accuracy of four conventional machine learning models.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.107 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".