Cited by 31Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecurityCloud Data Security Solutions

A federated learning architecture for secure and private neuroimaging analysis

Open access
Stripelis, Dimitris, Gupta, Umang, Saleem, Hamza, Dhinagar, Nikhil, Ghai, Tanmay, Anastasiou, Chrysovalantis, Sánchez, Rafael, Steeg, Greg Ver +4 more·2024·Patterns

Abstract

The amount of biomedical data continues to grow rapidly. However, collecting data from multiple sites for joint analysis remains challenging due to security, privacy, and regulatory concerns. To overcome this challenge, we use federated learning, which enables distributed training of neural network models over multiple data sources without sharing data. Each site trains the neural network over its private data for some time and then shares the neural network parameters (i.e., weights and/or gradients) with a federation controller, which in turn aggregates the local models and sends the resulting community model back to each site, and the process repeats. Our federated learning architecture, MetisFL, provides strong security and privacy. First, sample data never leave a site. Second, neural network parameters are encrypted before transmission and the global neural model is computed under fully homomorphic encryption. Finally, we use information-theoretic methods to limit information leakage from the neural model to prevent a "curious" site from performing model inversion or membership attacks. We present a thorough evaluation of the performance of secure, private federated learning in neuroimaging tasks, including for predicting Alzheimer's disease and for brain age gap estimation (BrainAGE) from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in challenging, heterogeneous federated environments where sites have different amounts of data and statistical distributions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.patter.2024.101031

Cites

128 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a particular study, attackers could rebuild images of MRI scans from gradients shared in a federated learning configuration, highlighting the privacy risks presented by unprotected gradient sharing in healthcare systems.

    “In a particular study, attackers could rebuild images of MRI scans from gradients shared in an FL configuration, highlighting the privacy risks presented by unprotected gradient sharing in healthcare systems [80].”

    From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Experimental procedures section (page unavailable) says gradients can leak information about individual samples, supporting the general privacy-risk point. But the paper does not report attackers reconstructing MRI images from shared gradients. Its Results section instead reports successful membership-inference attacks and says model inversion against the global federated model is impractical in realistic settings. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Stripelis D. Gupta U. Saleem H. Dhinagar N. Ghai T. Anastasiou C. Sanchez R. Steeg G.V. Ravi S. Naveed M. Metisfl 2024 University of Southern California. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.11411754 PMC11368680 39233693 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stripelis, D., Gupta, U., Saleem, H., Dhinagar, N., Ghai, T., Anastasiou, C., Sánchez, R., Steeg, G. V., Ravi, S., Naveed, M., Thompson, P. M., & Ambite, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Stripelis, Dimitris
Venue
Patterns
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-08
Volume
5
Issue
8
Pages
101031
ISSN
2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401215961
Cited by
31
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 3
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
federated learning, neuroimaging data analysis, privacy-preserving machine learning, fully homomorphic encryption, information leakage, model inversion attacks, membership inference attacks, Alzheimer's disease prediction, magnetic resonance imaging, heterogeneous federated learning, data security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review