MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410420109 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01661-8

FedWeight: mitigating covariate shift of federated learning on electronic health records data through patients re-weighting

2025· article· en· W4410420109 on OpenAlexafffund
He Zhu, Jun Bai, Na Li, Xiaoxiao Li, Dianbo Liu, David L. Buckeridge, Yue Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaVector InstituteMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHealth recordsCovariateElectronic health recordWeightingComputer scienceData scienceMedicineMachine learningPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative analysis of decentralized medical data while preserving patient privacy. However, the covariate shift from demographic and clinical differences can reduce model generalizability. We propose FedWeight, a novel FL framework that mitigates covariate shift by reweighting patient data from the source sites using density estimators, allowing the trained model to better align with the distribution of the target site. To support unsupervised applications, we introduce FedWeight ETM, a federated embedded topic model. We evaluated FedWeight in cross-site FL on the eICU dataset and cross-dataset FL between eICU and MIMIC III. FedWeight consistently outperforms standard FL baselines in predicting ICU mortality, ventilator use, sepsis diagnosis, and length of stay. SHAP-based interpretation and ETM-based topic modeling reveal improved identification of clinically relevant characteristics and disease topics associated with ICU readmission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207