ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Federated Learning with Differential Privacy for Ultrasound Breast Cancer Classification: An Empirical Study.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Breast cancer is a critical global health challenge, and deep learning shows transformative potential for medical image classification. However, privacy regulations such as HIPAA and GDPR create barriers to centralized data aggregation across institutions. This paper presents an empirical evaluation of federated learning (FL) for breast cancer classification in ultrasound images, systematically comparing seven deep learning architectures (ResNet-50, VGG16, VGG19, DenseNet-121, MobileNetV2, Vision Transformer, CoAtNet) across three FL algorithms (FedAvg, FedProx, FedOpt) with client-side differential privacy (DP). Using a simulated federation of eight institutions, we evaluate three clinically relevant classification scenarios. Federated models achieve performance comparable to centralized baselines-98.52% accuracy for normal/abnormal screening, 89.53% for three-class classification-with ViT-small and DenseNet-121 exceeding their centralized counterparts in several configurations. Under strong DP constraints (noise multiplier η=2.0, yielding conservative privacy budget estimates of ε<1.0 with δ=10-5), screening accuracy remains above 82%, though diagnostic tasks incur substantial degradation (best 68.42%). Our findings provide empirical guidance on architecture selection, FL algorithm choice, and privacy-utility trade-offs for privacy-preserving breast cancer diagnosis, while identifying key challenges for clinical deployment.
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.