ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Privacy-preserving federated prediction of health outcomes using multi-center survey data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported survey data are used to train prognostic models aimed at improving healthcare. However, such data are typically available multi-centric and, for privacy reasons, cannot easily be centralized in one data repository. Models trained locally are less accurate, robust, and generalizable. We aim to investigate the applicability of privacy-preserving federated machine learning techniques for prognostic model building on health survey data, where local data never leaves the legally safe harbors of the medical centers.
methodsWe used centralized, local, and federated learning techniques on two healthcare datasets (GLA: D®data from the five health regions of Denmark and international SHARE data of 27 countries) to predict two different health outcomes. We compared linear regression, random forest regression, and random forest classification models trained on local data with those trained on the entire data in a centralized and in a federated fashion.
resultsIn GLA: D® data, federated linear regression (R2 0.34, RMSE 18.2) and federated random forest regression (R2 0.34, RMSE 18.3) models outperform their local counterparts (i.e., R2 0.32, RMSE 18.6, R2 0.30, RMSE 18.8) with statistical significance. We also found that centralized models (R2 0.34, RMSE 18.2, R2 0.32, RMSE 18.5, respectively) did not perform significantly better than the federated models. In SHARE, the federated model (AC 0.78, AUROC: 0.71) and centralized model (AC 0.84, AUROC: 0.66) perform significantly better than the local models (AC: 0.74, AUROC: 0.69).
conclusionFederated learning enables the training of prognostic models from multi-center surveys without compromising privacy and with only minimal or no compromise regarding model performance.
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.