ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Continual learning framework for a multicenter study with an application to electrocardiogram.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PASTA-4-PHT: a pipeline for automated security and technical audits for the personal health train.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Continual learning across population cohorts with distribution shift: insights from multi-cohort metabolic syndrome identification.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Fusion of Personalized Federated Learning (PFL) with Differential Privacy (DP) Learning for Diagnosis of Arrhythmia Disease.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning has been increasingly utilized in the medical field and achieved many goals. Since the size of data dominates the performance of deep learning, several medical institutions are conducting joint research to obtain as much data as possible. However, sharing data is usually prohibited owing to the risk of privacy invasion. Federated learning is a reasonable idea to train distributed multicenter data without direct access; however, a central server to merge and distribute models is needed, which is expensive and hardly approved due to various legal regulations. This paper proposes a continual learning framework for a multicenter study, which does not require a central server and can prevent catastrophic forgetting of previously trained knowledge. The proposed framework contains the continual learning method selection process, assuming that a single method is not omnipotent for all involved datasets in a real-world setting and that there could be a proper method to be selected for specific data. We utilized the fake data based on a generative adversarial network to evaluate methods prospectively, not ex post facto. We used four independent electrocardiogram datasets for a multicenter study and trained the arrhythmia detection model. Our proposed framework was evaluated against supervised and federated learning methods, as well as finetuning approaches that do not include any regulation to preserve previous knowledge. Even without a central server and access to the past data, our framework achieved stable performance (AUROC 0.897) across all involved datasets, achieving comparable performance to federated learning (AUROC 0.901).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.