Federated Learning in Healthcare: A Privacy-Preserving Approach to Predictive Analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology such as machine learning in healthcare has pushed privacy concerns to the point that the handling of sensitive patient data has become paramount. In the context of FL, predictive analytics without data sharing between institutions can be performed through the process. Next, we explore the application of FL in healthcare in order to maintain data privacy while obtaining robust predictive models. FL utilizes aggregated decentralized data from multiple healthcare providers to reduce the chance of data breaches and continue to be compliant with rigorous regulatory frameworks, like HIPAA and GDPR, while doing so. In this work, we evaluate the model performance of FL models in predicting different types of health outcomes in comparison with traditional centralized models. We show that FL can achieve similar predictive accuracy while maintaining data privacy, which makes the choice of FL as a viable alternative to privacy sensitive healthcare environments. Second, applying FL is very challenging: there are communication overhead, data heterogeneity, and security risks. This study also considers ways to minimize these challenges. The results demonstrate the promise of Federated Learning as an innovative paradigm for applying predictive analytics in healthcare, indicative of a robust shift toward more secure, efficient and privacy preserving healthcare systems.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".