ArticleScientific reports2026
Federated learning with swarm intelligence for efficient and secure medical image analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaborative learning in healthcare faces challenges, including strict regulations and fragmented data. This research introduces a federated learning framework that employs swarm intelligence to augment communication and enhance the analysis of medical images. The method optimizes hyperparameters, selects features, and assigns aggregation weights to federated clients simultaneously by combining Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and the Firefly Algorithm (FA) with deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). The framework was tested on three medical datasets: COVID-19 chest X-rays (5,856 images), monkeypox skin images (569 images), and breast cancer mammograms (320 images). These datasets were shared among four fake healthcare institutions. It strives to strike a balance between privacy, communication costs, and classification accuracy. The results showed that the test was 96.71% accurate in detecting COVID-19, 96.06% accurate in classifying monkeypox, and 97.0% accurate in diagnosing breast cancer. The framework was able to handle noise and attacks from individuals who sought to disrupt it, which reduced communication rounds by 25-30%. A privacy-utility analysis revealed that there were acceptable trade-offs, with accuracy remaining above 94%. This study employs robust privacy measures and statistical validation. It also shows how to use medical AI in smaller healthcare settings without putting patients' privacy at risk.
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.