MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125805820 · doi:10.1109/medai67139.2025.00014

Fed-ensemble: Enhancing Federated Learning with Ensemble Models for an Explainable Thyroid Cancer Recurrence Prediction

2025· article· W7125805820 on OpenAlexaff
Hasibul Hasan Sabuj, Dan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryEnsemble learningFederated learningEnsemble forecastingTransparency (behavior)Thyroid cancerRobustness (evolution)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prediction of thyroid cancer recurrence is a critical task in clinical decision-making, yet traditional machine learning models face significant challenges, particularly around data privacy, model generalization with huge datasets, and interpretability. In healthcare, patient data is sensitive and sharing it across institutions for model training raises privacy concerns. This research addresses these issues by utilizing federated learning (FL), a decentralized machine learning approach that allows institutions to collaboratively train a model while ensuring patient data remains private. FL enables local model training at each institution, with only model updates shared across participants, safeguarding sensitive data. Alongside federated learning, the study incorporates Explainable AI (XAI) techniques to enhance the transparency of predictions, enabling clinicians to interpret and trust the model’s decision-making process. By combining multiple machine learning models in an ensemble approach, the research improves the prediction accuracy and robustness of thyroid cancer recurrence, even with limited data. The method is evaluated using a cohort dataset of thyroid cancer patients, with synthetic data augmentation addressing data scarcity. The results demonstrate that the approach outperforms traditional models while addressing critical challenges of data privacy and model interpretability. This proposed model outperforms previous methods, significantly higher than the best result on same dataset from prior work. Additionally, our model shows superior performance even when trained on larger datasets, confirming its generalizability and robustness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207