Collaborative Learning of Different Types of Healthcare Data From Heterogeneous IoT Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the realm of healthcare data analysis, privacy concerns have been tackled by the federated learning (FL) framework. However, in the situation that heterogeneous healthcare Internet of Things (IoT) devices collect different types of data, applying FL becomes difficult. To train a model leveraging diverse healthcare IoT devices, we propose an advanced collaborative learning framework to fill the gap. With the proposed collaborative learning framework, individual IoT devices project their sensed features into a carefully developed latent space, which are transmitted to a central server. For privacy preservation, the latent local features are encoded within this space, while the samples’ labels remain securely stored in the individual IoT devices. Collaboratively, the deep neural network model is trained by both the central server and the diverse IoT devices. The central server handles the computationally intensive training processes, while the individual IoT devices evaluate the model’s performance and initiate back-propagation based on their locally stored labels. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed collaborative learning framework achieves performance similar to centralized training and significantly outperforms individual training while preserving data privacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".