ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Performance of federated versus centralized learning for mammography classification across film-digital domain shift.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large, diverse datasets are essential for reliable deep learning in mammography, yet clinical data remain siloed due to privacy and governance constraints. Federated learning enables collaborative training without sharing raw data, but its robustness under strong imaging-domain heterogeneity, such as film-digital shifts, remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a comparative evaluation of centralized learning and cross-silo federated learning for benign-malignant lesion classification across two heterogeneous public datasets: CBIS-DDSM (scanned film) and VinDr-Mammo (full-field digital). Using ResNet-50 and Swin V2-T backbones, we evaluated FedAvg, FedProx, SCAFFOLD, and FedBN across multi-seed experiments with bootstrap confidence intervals. The study design included local-only baselines, homogeneous FL controls, size-balancing ablations, and a resolution ablation (224→324 px). Performance was assessed using AUROC, AP, Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1, and Precision@Recall = 0.90. Results: Federated models matched centralized learning in homogeneous settings for both domains. Under film-digital heterogeneity, FL retained strong performance on the digital VinDr domain (AUC ≈ 0.91-0.95) but showed reduced performance on the film-based CBIS domain (AUC ≈ 0.53-0.62), exhibiting a shift toward high-recall/low-precision behavior. Neither FedProx, SCAFFOLD, nor FedBN consistently mitigated this degradation. Size-balancing improved CBIS performance modestly but did not close the gap to centralized learning, indicating that feature and quality shift dominated over dataset-size imbalance. Higher input resolution improved CBIS calcification detection (e.g., F1 0.49 → 0.54). Discussion: These findings show that FL performs reliably within homogeneous domains but remains vulnerable to strong feature and quality shifts between film and digital mammography. The observed asymmetric performance suggests that domain shift, rather than data quantity or optimizer instability, is the dominant limiting factor. Conclusion: Federated learning enables high-performing mammography classification without data centralization in homogeneous settings but requires domain-aware or personalized FL strategies, site-specific thresholding, and resolution-sensitive preprocessing to ensure reliable deployment under film-digital heterogeneity.
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.