Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39391509›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Federated learning: Overview, strategies, applications, tools and future directions.

Betul Yurdem, Murat Kuzlu, Mehmet Kemal Gullu, Ferhat Ozgur Catak, Maliha Tabassum

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. From data to decisions: The role of machine learning in precision ecological restoration.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. From data to decisions: Toward a Biodiversity Monitoring Standards Framework.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Betul YurdemDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Izmir Bakircay University, Izmir, Turkey.
Murat KuzluBatten College of Engineering and Technology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Mehmet Kemal GulluDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Izmir Bakircay University, Izmir, Turkey.
Ferhat Ozgur CatakDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Stavanger, Rogaland, Norway.
Maliha TabassumBatten College of Engineering and Technology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Federated learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning process, which allows multiple nodes to work together to train a shared model without exchanging raw data. It offers several key advantages, such as data privacy, security, efficiency, and scalability, by keeping data local and only exchanging model updates through the communication network. This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of federated learning, including its principles, strategies, applications, and tools along with opportunities, challenges, and future research directions. The findings of this paper emphasize that federated learning strategies can significantly help overcome privacy and confidentiality concerns, particularly for high-risk applications.

Indexed as

Data privacyDistributed machine learningFederated learning

Identifiers

PMID39391509
PMCPMC11466570

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.