MID-LLM: Enhancing Medical Image Diagnostics With LLMs in a Blockchain AI Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of medical imaging data presents significant challenges in diagnostic accuracy, data privacy, and computational efficiency. Traditional centralized AI models struggle with scalability and pose risks to patient confidentiality due to data aggregation. Moreover, heterogeneous medical data across institutions complicates the development of robust diagnostic tools. To address these issues, we propose MID-LLM, a novel framework that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) with a blockchain-based federated learning system for medical image analysis. It also ensures the security and privacy of sensitive medical data across decentralized networks. MID-LLM uses verification mechanisms to ensure the global model’s integrity. It also employs aggregation techniques to reduce bias and improve training efficiency. Experiments on the BraTS 2020 dataset show that MID-LLM outperforms traditional federated learning, achieving higher Dice scores with improved computational efficiency. These results highlight MID-LLM’s potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy while offering a scalable, secure solution for AI in healthcare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".