ArticleScientific reports2026
Privacy-aware deep vein thrombosis segmentation using a multi-model federated learning framework with the federated averaging algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) is the formation of blood clots in the deep veins of the calf, requiring precise Computer Tomography (CT) scan segmentation for accurate diagnosis and treatment. We proposed and developed an efficient Federated Learning (FedL) architecture using the Federated Averaging (FedAvg) algorithm. Seven distinct local models were designed and trained on non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) CT images to maintain data privacy and security, enhancing DVT segmentation efficiency and accuracy. The global model was progressively improved by aggregating the local model's weights using FedAvg algorithm. Our algorithm was evaluated in three phases using datasets of 1000, 2000, and 3000 samples to assess the global model's performance. Phase 1 involved three clients, each with unique local models (Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Sequential, and Semantic). While, Phase 2 expanded to five clients, incorporating additional models (U-Net and VGG Net-19). In Phase 3, scaled to seven clients with advanced models (Modified U-Net and Modified-Net). Empirical results across Phases 1-3 showed significant gains with increasing dataset size -attaining higher Accuracy ([Formula: see text]) and F1-score ([Formula: see text]), while Tversky Loss decreased to ([Formula: see text]). Notably, our framework proved consistent improvement across all phases, achieving a reduction in validation loss from 0.910 to 0.061 and a communication cost increase from 14 MB to 3279 MB with increasing model scales. The average training time rose proportionally (7.67 s → 18,702 s) while maintaining robust differential privacy preservation (ε [Formula: see text]) and improved client heterogeneity ([Formula: see text]), demonstrating our framework's scalability and stability across heterogeneous environments.
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.