Simulating federated learning for steatosis detection using ultrasound images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to implement four data partitioning strategies evaluated with four federated learning (FL) algorithms and investigate the impact of data distribution on FL model performance in detecting steatosis using B-mode US images. A private dataset (153 patients; 1530 images) and a public dataset (55 patient; 550 images) were included in this retrospective study. The datasets contained patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) with biopsy-proven steatosis grades and control individuals without steatosis. We employed four data partitioning strategies to simulate FL scenarios and we assessed four FL algorithms. We investigated the impact of class imbalance and the mismatch between the global and local data distributions on the learning outcome. Classification performance was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) on a separate test set. AUCs were 0.93 (95% CI 0.92, 0.94) for source-based partitioning scenario with FedAvg, 0.90 (95% CI 0.89, 0.91) for a centralized model, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.81, 0.85) for a model trained in a single-center scenario. When data was perfectly balanced on the global level and each site had an identical data distribution, the model yielded an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.88, 0.92). When each site contained data exclusively from one single class, irrespective of the global data distribution, the AUC fell in the range of 0.34-0.70. FL applied to B-mode US images provide performance comparable to a centralized model and higher than single-center scenario. Global data imbalance and local data heterogeneity influenced the learning outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".