HarmonyTM: multi-center data harmonization applied to distributed learning for Parkinson’s disease classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Distributed learning is widely used to comply with data-sharing regulations and access diverse datasets for training machine learning (ML) models. The traveling model (TM) is a distributed learning approach that sequentially trains with data from one center at a time, which is especially advantageous when dealing with limited local datasets. However, a critical concern emerges when centers utilize different scanners for data acquisition, which could potentially lead models to exploit these differences as shortcuts. Although data harmonization can mitigate this issue, current methods typically rely on large or paired datasets, which can be impractical to obtain in distributed setups. Approach: We introduced HarmonyTM, a data harmonization method tailored for the TM. HarmonyTM effectively mitigates bias in the model's feature representation while retaining crucial disease-related information, all without requiring extensive datasets. Specifically, we employed adversarial training to "unlearn" bias from the features used in the model for classifying Parkinson's disease (PD). We evaluated HarmonyTM using multi-center three-dimensional (3D) neuroimaging datasets from 83 centers using 23 different scanners. Results: Our results show that HarmonyTM improved PD classification accuracy from 72% to 76% and reduced (unwanted) scanner classification accuracy from 53% to 30% in the TM setup. Conclusion: HarmonyTM is a method tailored for harmonizing 3D neuroimaging data within the TM approach, aiming to minimize shortcut learning in distributed setups. This prevents the disease classifier from leveraging scanner-specific details to classify patients with or without PD-a key aspect for deploying ML models for clinical applications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".