Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38011227›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2023

Federated learning for medical imaging radiology.

Muhammad Habib Ur Rehman, Walter Hugo Lopez Pinaya, Parashkev Nachev, James T Teo, Sebastin Ourselin, M Jorge Cardoso

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Model Based on Ultrasound Radiomics and Machine Learning for Differentiating Uterine Fibroids and Adenomyomas.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Muhammad Habib Ur RehmanDivision of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7428-2272
Walter Hugo Lopez PinayaDivision of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Parashkev NachevInstitute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
James T TeoKing's College Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sebastin OurselinDivision of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
M Jorge CardosoDivision of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Federated learning (FL) is gaining wide acceptance across the medical AI domains. FL promises to provide a fairly acceptable clinical-grade accuracy, privacy, and generalisability of machine learning models across multiple institutions. However, the research on FL for medical imaging AI is still in its early stages. This paper presents a review of recent research to outline the difference between state-of-the-art [SOTA] (published literature) and state-of-the-practice [SOTP] (applied research in realistic clinical environments). Furthermore, the review outlines the future research directions considering various factors such as data, learning models, system design, governance, and human-in-loop to translate the SOTA into SOTP and effectively collaborate across multiple institutions.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingRadiologyHumansMachine LearningRadiography

Identifiers

PMID38011227
PMCPMC10546441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.