ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Collaborative learning from distributed data with differentially private synthetic data.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic data generation: a privacy-preserving approach to accelerate rare disease research.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Classification of AO/OTA 31A/B femur fractures in X-ray images using YOLOv8 and advanced data augmentation techniques.Bone reports · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundConsider a setting where multiple parties holding sensitive data aim to collaboratively learn population level statistics, but pooling the sensitive data sets is not possible due to privacy concerns and parties are unable to engage in centrally coordinated joint computation. We study the feasibility of combining privacy preserving synthetic data sets in place of the original data for collaborative learning on real-world health data from the UK Biobank.
methodsWe perform an empirical evaluation based on an existing prospective cohort study from the literature. Multiple parties were simulated by splitting the UK Biobank cohort along assessment centers, for which we generate synthetic data using differentially private generative modelling techniques. We then apply the original study's Poisson regression analysis on the combined synthetic data sets and evaluate the effects of 1) the size of local data set, 2) the number of participating parties, and 3) local shifts in distributions, on the obtained likelihood scores.
resultsWe discover that parties engaging in the collaborative learning via shared synthetic data obtain more accurate estimates of the regression parameters compared to using only their local data. This finding extends to the difficult case of small heterogeneous data sets. Furthermore, the more parties participate, the larger and more consistent the improvements become up to a certain limit. Finally, we find that data sharing can especially help parties whose data contain underrepresented groups to perform better-adjusted analysis for said groups.
conclusionsBased on our results we conclude that sharing of synthetic data is a viable method for enabling learning from sensitive data without violating privacy constraints even if individual data sets are small or do not represent the overall population well. Lack of access to distributed sensitive data is often a bottleneck in biomedical research, which our study shows can be alleviated with privacy-preserving collaborative learning methods.
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.