ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Multi-Hospital Electronic Health Record Foundation Models Without Data Sharing: A Comparison of Federated Learning and Inference-Time Ensembling.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Foundation models for electronic health records (EHRs) perform strongly on clinical prediction, but every published model has been trained within a single health system. No multi-institutional EHR foundation model currently exists, largely because privacy regulations and governance barriers block data pooling across hospitals. Two strategies could build such models without pooling: federated learning (exchanges model weights) and inference-time ensembling (exchanges only predictions at query time). Whether either is viable for autoregressive EHR foundation models, and whether individual hospitals benefit from participating, is not established. Methods: We trained a generative pretrained transformer (GPT) style EHR foundation model on 100,163 Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) patients, partitioned into five heterogeneously distributed (non-IID) sites by Dirichlet allocation over International Classification of Diseases (ICD) chapters. We compared centralized training, federated averaging, and inference-time ensembling, and each hospital's solo model against the ensemble including it. Models were evaluated on 15,012 held-out patients using per-condition area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for five acute conditions and micro-averaged area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) across 2,590 diagnoses. Results: Centralized training achieved per-condition AUROC 0.75-0.85 and overall AUPRC 0.376. Federated averaging recovered 85% of centralized AUPRC (0.321) and 98-100% of per-condition AUROC. Inference-time ensembling, requiring no training-time exchange, recovered 77% of AUPRC (0.291) and 97-99% of per-condition AUROC. An estimated 87% of participating hospitals received a better model from the ensemble than from training alone; only hospitals with ~40% of the network's patients matched the ensemble on their own. FedProx collapsed to the marginal baseline. Conclusions: Multi-institutional EHR foundation models can be built without pooling patient data. Inference-time ensembling benefits most participating hospitals and imposes the lightest governance burden; federated learning recovers more performance but requires weight sharing. These findings offer a practical path toward collaborative clinical AI.
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.