Empowering Patient Similarity Networks through Innovative Data-Quality-Aware Federated Profiling
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 are located (e.g., the edge). However, data quality (DQ) can be degraded because of imprecise or malfunctioning sensors, dynamic changes in the environment, transmission failures, or delays. Therefore, it is crucial to keep an eye on data quality and spot problems as quickly as possible, so that they do not mislead clinical judgments and lead to the wrong course of action. In this article, a novel approach called federated data quality profiling (FDQP) is proposed to assess the quality of the data at the edge. FDQP is inspired by federated learning (FL) and serves as a condensed document or a guide for node data quality assurance. The FDQP formal model is developed to capture the quality dimensions specified in the data quality profile (DQP). The proposed approach uses federated feature selection to improve classifier precision and rank features based on criteria such as feature value, outlier percentage, and missing data percentage. Extensive experimentation using a fetal dataset split into different edge nodes and a set of scenarios were carefully chosen to evaluate the proposed FDQP model. The results of the experiments demonstrated that the proposed FDQP approach positively improved the DQ, and thus, impacted the accuracy of the federated patient similarity network (FPSN)-based machine learning models. The proposed data-quality-aware federated PSN architecture leveraging FDQP model with data collected from edge nodes can effectively improve the data quality and accuracy of the federated patient similarity network (FPSN)-based machine learning models. Our profiling algorithm used lightweight profile exchange instead of full data processing at the edge, which resulted in optimal data quality achievement, thus improving efficiency. Overall, FDQP is an effective method for assessing data quality in the edge computing environment, and we believe that the proposed approach can be applied to other scenarios beyond patient monitoring.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".