MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386158797 · doi:10.1109/icme55011.2023.00122

FedDBM: Federated Digital Biomarker for Detecting Parkinson’s Disease Progress

2023· article· en· W4386158797 on OpenAlexaff
Yiqiang Chen, Xiaodong Yang, Yuting He, Chunyan Miao, Piu Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
FundersResearch and DevelopmentNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceFederated learningParkinson's diseaseMachine learningProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceClinical trialBig dataDiseaseMotor symptomsMedicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploring a Digital Bio-Marker (DBM) is challenging for detecting the progress of Parkinson’s Disease (PD) since the unclear disease mechanism. Traditional clinical trials first formulate a DBM hypothesis and then proceed to verify them by control study, the process of which is often limited to clinicians’ expertise and experience. Machine Learning with big data provides an opportunity to automatically discover DBMs, while recent privacy policies, such as GDPR, have created extra obstacles for collecting patient information and conducting multicenter trials. To address this issue, we propose a novel DBM discovery paradigm with federated learning, called FedDBM, which forms a closed loop consisting of model training and post hoc explanation. FedDBM employs a federated split learning to preserve patients’ privacy in a multicenter clinical trial which attempts to build a model that maps signal data to PD progress. Then, a Federated Shapley Additive exPlanations method (Fed-SHAP) is proposed to find those features of vital importance in the well-trained model, known as DBM. The proposed FedDBM was evaluated on four PD typical motor symptoms and the extensive experimental results demonstrated that FedDBM showed comparable performance with SOTA federated learning methods, and the explored DBMs were proved to be more sensitive than current clinical metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207