Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39081567›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2024

Privacy preservation for federated learning in health care.

Sarthak Pati, Sourav Kumar, Amokh Varma, Brandon Edwards, Charles Lu, Liangqiong Qu, Justin J Wang, Anantharaman Lakshminarayanan, Shih-Han Wang, Micah J Sheller and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. The Continuity Trap in Data Science Health Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

15 authors.

Sarthak PatiCenter for Federated Learning in Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Sourav KumarDepartment of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Amokh VarmaDepartment of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Brandon EdwardsIntel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Charles LuDepartment of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Liangqiong QuDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Justin J WangDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Radiology, and Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Anantharaman LakshminarayananInstitute for Infocomm Research, Agency for Science Technology and Research (A∗STAR), Singapore, Singapore.
Shih-Han WangIntel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Micah J ShellerIntel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Ken ChangDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Praveer SinghUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Daniel L RubinDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Radiology, and Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jayashree Kalpathy-CramerUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Spyridon BakasCenter for Federated Learning in Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Funding

Privacy-Aware Federated Learning for Breast Cancer Risk AssessmentU24CA279629 · NCI · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Spyridon Bakas · 2023 to 2026
$2.9M
Distributed Learning of Deep Learning Models for Cancer ResearchU01CA242879 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI KALPATHY-CRAMER, JAYASHREE, RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2019 to 2021
$1.2M
The Federated Tumor Segmentation (FeTS) platform: An intuitive tool facilitating secure multi-institutional collaborationU01CA242871 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BAKAS, SPYRIDON · 2019 to 2021
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA242871NCI NIH HHS U01 CA242879NCI NIH HHS U24 CA279629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) shows potential to improve health care by leveraging data to build models that can inform clinical workflows. However, access to large quantities of diverse data is needed to develop robust generalizable models. Data sharing across institutions is not always feasible due to legal, security, and privacy concerns. Federated learning (FL) allows for multi-institutional training of AI models, obviating data sharing, albeit with different security and privacy concerns. Specifically, insights exchanged during FL can leak information about institutional data. In addition, FL can introduce issues when there is limited trust among the entities performing the compute. With the growing adoption of FL in health care, it is imperative to elucidate the potential risks. We thus summarize privacy-preserving FL literature in this work with special regard to health care. We draw attention to threats and review mitigation approaches. We anticipate this review to become a health-care researcher's guide to security and privacy in FL.

Indexed as

federated learninghealth careprivacyreview articlesecurity

Identifiers

PMID39081567
PMCPMC11284498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.