Federated benchmarking of medical artificial intelligence with MedPerf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical artificial intelligence (AI) has tremendous potential to advance healthcare by supporting and contributing to the evidence-based practice of medicine, personalizing patient treatment, reducing costs, and improving both healthcare provider and patient experience. Unlocking this potential requires systematic, quantitative evaluation of the performance of medical AI models on large-scale, heterogeneous data capturing diverse patient populations. Here, to meet this need, we introduce MedPerf, an open platform for benchmarking AI models in the medical domain. MedPerf focuses on enabling federated evaluation of AI models, by securely distributing them to different facilities, such as healthcare organizations. This process of bringing the model to the data empowers each facility to assess and verify the performance of AI models in an efficient and human-supervised process, while prioritizing privacy. We describe the current challenges healthcare and AI communities face, the need for an open platform, the design philosophy of MedPerf, its current implementation status and real-world deployment, our roadmap and, importantly, the use of MedPerf with multiple international institutions within cloud-based technology and on-premises scenarios. Finally, we welcome new contributions by researchers and organizations to further strengthen MedPerf as an open benchmarking platform.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".