ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating distributed-learning on real-world obstetrics data: comparing distributed, centralized and local models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study focused on comparing distributed learning models with centralized and local models, assessing their efficacy in predicting specific delivery and patient-related outcomes in obstetrics using real-world data. The predictions focus on key moments in the obstetric care process, including discharge and various stages of hospitalization. Our analysis: using 6 different machine learning methods like Decision Trees, Bayesian methods, Stochastic Gradient Descent, K-nearest neighbors, AdaBoost, and Multi-layer Perceptron and 19 different variables with various distributions and types, revealed that distributed models were at least equal, and often superior, to centralized versions and local versions. We also describe thoroughly the preprocessing stage in order to help others implement this method in real-world scenarios. The preprocessing steps included cleaning and harmonizing missing values, handling missing data and encoding categorical variables with multisite logic. Even though the type of machine learning model and the distribution of the outcome variable can impact the result, we reached results of 66% being superior to the centralized and local counterpart and 77% being better than the centralized with AdaBoost. Our experiments also shed light in the preprocessing steps required to implement distributed models in a real-world scenario. Our results advocate for distributed learning as a promising tool for applying machine learning in clinical settings, particularly when privacy and data security are paramount, thus offering a robust solution for privacy-concerned clinical applications.
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.