Cited by 128Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataMachine Learning in HealthcareTensor decomposition and applications

Federated Tensor Factorization for Computational Phenotyping

Open access
Kim, Yejin, Sun, Jimeng, Yu, Hwanjo, Jiang, Xiaoqian·2017·Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Abstract

Tensor factorization models offer an effective approach to convert massive electronic health records into meaningful clinical concepts (phenotypes) for data analysis. These models need a large amount of diverse samples to avoid population bias. An open challenge is how to derive phenotypes jointly across multiple hospitals, in which direct patient-level data sharing is not possible (e.g., due to institutional policies). In this paper, we developed a novel solution to enable federated tensor factorization for computational phenotyping without sharing patient-level data. We developed secure data harmonization and federated computation procedures based on alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). Using this method, the multiple hospitals iteratively update tensors and transfer secure summarized information to a central server, and the server aggregates the information to generate phenotypes. We demonstrated with real medical datasets that our method resembles the centralized training model (based on combined datasets) in terms of accuracy and phenotypes discovery while respecting privacy.

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 · 10.1145/3097983.3098118

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Byzantine clients can send arbitrary values instead of locally updated models, which can result in convergence to sub-optimal models or divergence.

    “Instead of sending locally updated models to the server, these Byzantine clients can send arbitrary values. This can result in convergence to sub-optimal models, or even lead to divergence [76].”

    From Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    Section 4.3.2 describes hospitals sending locally updated factor matrices to the server. But the paper’s privacy analysis (§4.5) assumes an honest-but-curious adversary; our copy does not address Byzantine clients sending arbitrary values or whether that causes sub-optimal convergence or divergence. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Federated learning has been applied in electronic health records to represent and find clinically similar patients, predict hospitalisations due to cardiac events, mortality and ICU stay time; in medical imaging for whole-brain segmentation in MRI and brain tumour segmentation; for fMRI classification to find disease-related biomarkers; and suggested as a promising approach for COVID-19.

    “In the context of electronic health records (EHR), for example, FL helps to represent and to find clinically similar patients13,47, as well as predicting hospitalisations due to cardiac events14, mortality and ICU stay time19.”

    From The future of digital health with federated learning (2020) · cites this paper as [47]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Various robust aggregators are provably effective for Byzantine-tolerant distributed learning under appropriate assumptions, even in federated settings.

    “Past work has shown that various robust aggregators are provably effective for Byzantine-tolerant distributed learning [436, 76, 116] under appropriate assumptions, even in federated settings [379, 486, 427].”

    From Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    Section 4.4 proves convergence of the paper’s federated tensor-factorization method, not Byzantine tolerance. The Introduction discusses robustness to sampling error from small or unevenly distributed hospitals; a search for Byzantine or malicious participants found no passage addressing whether robust aggregators are effective against them. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

3 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [12]Greengard S A new model for healthcare Communications of the ACM 56 2 17 19 2013
  2. [14]Ho JC Ghosh J Sun J Marble: High-throughput Phenotyping from Electronic Health Records via Sparse Nonnegative Tensor Factorization Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’14 115 124 New York, NY, USA 2014 ACM
  3. [16]Kang U Papalexakis E Harpale A Faloutsos C Gigatensor: scaling tensor analysis up by 100 times-algorithms and discoveries Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining 316 324 ACM 2012
  4. [17]Kim Y Sun J Yu H Jiang X Federated Tensor Factorization for Computational Phenotyping http://dm.postech.ac.kr/trip 2016 PMC5652331 29071165

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y., Sun, J., Yu, H., & Jiang, X.
Affiliations
  • Pohang University of Science and Technology (KR)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-08-04
Volume
2017
Pages
887-895
OpenAlex
W2606065148
Cited by
128
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning (2014-0-00147)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01GM118609, R21LM012060)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (2016R1E1A1A01942642)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Computational Mathematics › Tensor decomposition and applications
Keywords
computational phenotyping, electronic health records, data privacy, data harmonization, alternating direction method of multipliers, population bias, privacy-preserving machine learning

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