MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391677677 · doi:10.1002/mp.16964

Differential privacy preserved federated learning for prognostic modeling in COVID‐19 patients using large multi‐institutional chest CT dataset

2024· article· en· W4391677677 on OpenAlexaff
Isaac Shiri, Yazdan Salimi, Nasim Sirjani, Behrooz Razeghi, Sara Bagherieh, Masoumeh Pakbin, Zahra Mansouri, Ghasem Hajianfar, Atlas Haddadi Avval, Dariush Askari, Mohammadreza Ghasemian, Saleh Sandoughdaran, Ahmad Sohrabi, Elham Sadati, Somayeh Livani, Pooya Iranpour, Shahriar Kolahi, Bardia Khosravi, Salar Bijari, Sahar Sayfollahi, Mohammad Reza Atashzar, Mohammad Hasanian, Alireza Shahhamzeh, Arash Teimouri, Neda Goharpey, Hesamaddin Shirzad‐Aski, Jalal Karimi, Amir Reza Radmard, Kiara Rezaei‐Kalantari, Mostafa Ghelich Oghli, Mehrdad Oveisi, Alireza Vafaei Sadr, Slava Voloshynovskiy, Habib Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceTest setMachine learningInferenceData setFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Data miningMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding the encouraging results of previous studies reporting on the efficiency of deep learning (DL) in COVID-19 prognostication, clinical adoption of the developed methodology still needs to be improved. To overcome this limitation, we set out to predict the prognosis of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with COVID-19 using a DL-based model. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of deep privacy-preserving federated learning (DPFL) in predicting COVID-19 outcomes using chest CT images. METHODS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 3055 patients from 19 centers, including 1599 alive and 1456 deceased, were enrolled in this study. Data from all centers were split (randomly with stratification respective to each center and class) into a training/validation set (70%/10%) and a hold-out test set (20%). For the DL model, feature extraction was performed on 2D slices, and averaging was performed at the final layer to construct a 3D model for each scan. The DensNet model was used for feature extraction. The model was developed using centralized and FL approaches. For FL, we employed DPFL approaches. Membership inference attack was also evaluated in the FL strategy. For model evaluation, different metrics were reported in the hold-out test sets. In addition, models trained in two scenarios, centralized and FL, were compared using the DeLong test for statistical differences. RESULTS: The centralized model achieved an accuracy of 0.76, while the DPFL model had an accuracy of 0.75. Both the centralized and DPFL models achieved a specificity of 0.77. The centralized model achieved a sensitivity of 0.74, while the DPFL model had a sensitivity of 0.73. A mean AUC of 0.82 and 0.81 with 95% confidence intervals of (95% CI: 0.79-0.85) and (95% CI: 0.77-0.84) were achieved by the centralized model and the DPFL model, respectively. The DeLong test did not prove statistically significant differences between the two models (p-value = 0.98). The AUC values for the inference attacks fluctuate between 0.49 and 0.51, with an average of 0.50 ± 0.003 and 95% CI for the mean AUC of 0.500 to 0.501. CONCLUSION: The performance of the proposed model was comparable to centralized models while operating on large and heterogeneous multi-institutional datasets. In addition, the model was resistant to inference attacks, ensuring the privacy of shared data during the training process.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207