Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487517›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2024

Efficacy of federated learning on genomic data: a study on the UK Biobank and the 1000 Genomes Project.

Dmitry Kolobkov, Satyarth Mishra Sharma, Aleksandr Medvedev, Mikhail Lebedev, Egor Kosaretskiy, Ruslan Vakhitov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Dmitry Kolobkov *GENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Satyarth Mishra Sharma *GENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Aleksandr MedvedevGENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Mikhail LebedevGENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Egor KosaretskiyGENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Ruslan VakhitovGENXT, Hinxton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combining training data from multiple sources increases sample size and reduces confounding, leading to more accurate and less biased machine learning models. In healthcare, however, direct pooling of data is often not allowed by data custodians who are accountable for minimizing the exposure of sensitive information. Federated learning offers a promising solution to this problem by training a model in a decentralized manner thus reducing the risks of data leakage. Although there is increasing utilization of federated learning on clinical data, its efficacy on individual-level genomic data has not been studied. This study lays the groundwork for the adoption of federated learning for genomic data by investigating its applicability in two scenarios: phenotype prediction on the UK Biobank data and ancestry prediction on the 1000 Genomes Project data. We show that federated models trained on data split into independent nodes achieve performance close to centralized models, even in the presence of significant inter-node heterogeneity. Additionally, we investigate how federated model accuracy is affected by communication frequency and suggest approaches to reduce computational complexity or communication costs.

Indexed as

ancestry predictiondata collaborationfederated learning (FL)genomicsmachine learningphenotype predictionpolygenic scores

Identifiers

PMID38487517
PMCPMC10937521

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.