Proportionally Fair Hospital Collaborations in Federated Learning of Histopathology Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical centers and healthcare providers have concerns and hence restrictions around sharing data with external collaborators. Federated learning, as a privacy-preserving method, involves learning a site-independent model without having direct access to patient-sensitive data in a distributed collaborative fashion. The federated approach relies on decentralized data distribution from various hospitals and clinics. The collaboratively learned global model is supposed to have acceptable performance for the individual sites. However, existing methods focus on minimizing the average of the aggregated loss functions, leading to a biased model that performs perfectly for some hospitals while exhibiting undesirable performance for other sites. In this paper, we improve model "fairness" among participating hospitals by proposing a novel federated learning scheme called Proportionally Fair Federated Learning, short Prop-FFL. Prop-FFL is based on a novel optimization objective function to decrease the performance variations among participating hospitals. This function encourages a fair model, providing us with more uniform performance across participating hospitals. We validate the proposed Prop-FFL on two histopathology datasets as well as two general datasets to shed light on its inherent capabilities. The experimental results suggest promising performance in terms of learning speed, accuracy, and fairness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".