CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3,495Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

The Future of Digital Health with Federated Learning

Open access
Rieke, Nicola, Hancox, Jonny, Li, Wenqi, Milletari, Fausto, Roth, Holger, Albarqouni, Shadi, Bakas, Spyridon, Galtier, Mathieu N. +9 more·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2003.08119arXiv 2003.08119
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Data-driven Machine Learning has emerged as a promising approach for building accurate and robust statistical models from medical data, which is collected in huge volumes by modern healthcare systems. Existing medical data is not fully exploited by ML primarily because it sits in data silos and privacy concerns restrict access to this data. However, without access to sufficient data, ML will be prevented from reaching its full potential and, ultimately, from making the transition from research to clinical practice. This paper considers key factors contributing to this issue, explores how Federated Learning (FL) may provide a solution for the future of digital health and highlights the challenges and considerations that need to be addressed.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2003.08119

Cites

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?

  • FL can provide efficient solutions for smart healthcare and potentially reshape current intelligent healthcare systems by providing AI functions for supporting healthcare services while improving user privacy and reducing low latency with the cooperation of multiple entities such as health users and healthcare providers across medical institutions.

    “FL can provide a number of efficient solutions for smart healthcare and potentially reshapes the current intelligent healthcare systems by proving AI functions for supporting healthcare services while improving user privacy and reducing low latency with the cooperation of multiple entities such as health users and healthcare providers across medical institutions [47].”

    From Federated Learning for Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey (2021) · cites this paper as [47]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Federated learning approaches have arguably become the most widely used next-generation privacy preservation technique, both in industry and medical AI applications.

    “Thus, federated learning approaches have arguably become the most widely used next-generation privacy preservation technique, both in industry 49 and medical AI applications 50 .”

    From Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging (2020) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction (page not available in our copy) describes federated learning as a way to address data privacy and says it has gained traction in healthcare. The section “Data-Driven Medicine Requires Federated Efforts” gives examples of medical AI use. Neither passage establishes that it is the most widely used next-generation privacy-preservation technique; the separate industry citation is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Decentralized data storage and federated learning systems have recently demonstrated results in medical imaging and genomics.

    “with results in medical imaging 50,86 and genomics 87 recently demonstrated.”

    From Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging (2020) · cites this paper as [50]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436 (2015).
  2. De Fauw, J. et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat. Med. 24, 1342 (2018).
  3. Sun, C., Shrivastava, A., Singh, S. & Gupta, A. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 843-852 (IEEE, 2017).
  4. Van Panhuis, W. G. et al. A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health. BMC Public Health 14, 1144 (2014).
  5. Li, T., Sahu, A. K., Talwalkar, A. & Smith, V. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 37, 50-60 (IEEE, 2020).
  6. Yang, Q., Liu, Y., Chen, T. & Tong, Y. Federated machine learning: concept and applications. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. (TIST) 10, 12 (2019).
  7. Kairouz, P. et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. arXiv pre- print arXiv:1912.04977 (2019). · arXiv
  8. Lee, J. et al. Privacy-preserving patient similarity learning in a federated envir- onment: development and analysis. JMIR Med. Inform. 6, e20 (2018).
  9. Roy, A. G., Siddiqui, S., Pölsterl, S., Navab, N. & Wachinger, C. Braintorrent: a peer- to-peer environment for decentralized federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06731 (2019). · arXiv
  10. Li, W. et al. Privacy-preserving federated brain tumour segmentation. In Inter- national Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, 133-141 (Springer, 2019).
  11. Sheller, M. J., Reina, G. A., Edwards, B., Martin, J. & Bakas, S. Multi-institutional deep learning modeling without sharing patient data: a feasibility study on brain tumor segmentation. In International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop, 92-104 (Springer, 2018).
  12. Li, X. et al. Multi-site fmri analysis using privacy-preserving federated learning and domain adaptation: abide results. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.05647 (2020). · arXiv
  13. Huang, L. et al. Patient clustering improves efficiency of federated machine learning to predict mortality and hospital stay time using distributed electronic medical records. J. Biomed. Inform. 99, 103291 (2019).
  14. Xu, J. & Wang, F. Federated learning for healthcare informatics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.06270 (2019). · arXiv
  15. Sporns, O., Tononi, G. & Kötter, R. The human connectome: a structural description of the human brain. PLoS Comput. Biol. 1, e42, https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042 (2005). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Sudlow, C. et al. Uk biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12, e1001779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  17. Wang, X. et al. Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest X-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2097-2106 (IEEE, 2017).
  18. Yan, K., Wang, X., Lu, L. & Summers, R. M. Deeplesion: automated mining of large- scale lesion annotations and universal lesion detection with deep learning. J Med. Imaging. 5, 036501 (2018).
  19. Tomczak, K., Czerwińska, P. & Wiznerowicz, M. The cancer genome atlas (tcga): an immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemp. Oncol. 19, A68 (2015).
  20. Menze, B. H. et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 34, 1993-2024 (2014).
  21. Bakas, S. et al. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the brats challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.02629 (2018). · arXiv
  22. Bakas, S. et al. Advancing the cancer genome atlas glioma MRI collections with expert segmentation labels and radiomic features. Sci. Data 4, 170117 (2017).
  23. Simpson, A. L. et al. A large annotated medical image dataset for the develop- ment and evaluation of segmentation algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09063 (2019). · arXiv
  24. Yeh, F.-C. et al. Quantifying differences and similarities in whole-brain white matter architecture using local connectome fingerprints. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1005203 (2016).
  25. Shokri, R., Stronati, M., Song, C. & Shmatikov, V. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 3-18 (IEEE, 2017).
  26. Sablayrolles, A., Douze, M., Ollivier, Y., Schmid, C. & Jégou, H. White-box vs black- box: Bayes optimal strategies for membership inference. In Chaudhuri, K. & Sal- akhutdinov, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, {ICML} 97, 5558-5567. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/sablayrolles19a. html (PMLR, 2019).
  27. Zhang, C., Bengio, S., Hardt, M., Recht, B. & Vinyals, O. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, {ICLR}. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Sy8gdB9xx, (OpenReview.net, 2017).
  28. Carlini, N., Liu, C., Erlingsson, Ú., Kos, J. & Song, D. The secret sharer: evaluating and testing unintended memorization in neural networks. In Heninger, N. & Traynor, P. (eds) 28th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 19, 267-284. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/carlini ({USE- NIX} Association, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2019).
  29. Abadi, M. et al. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 308-318 (ACM, 2016).
  30. Shokri, R. & Shmatikov, V. Privacy-preserving deep learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 1310-1321 (ACM, 2015).
  31. Langlotz, C. P. et al. A roadmap for foundational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 nih/rsna/acr/the academy workshop. Radi- ology 291, 781-791 (2019).
  32. Kim, Y., Sun, J., Yu, H. & Jiang, X. Federated Tensor Factorization for Computa- tional Phenotyping. In Proceedings of the 23rd {ACM} {SIGKDD} International Conference on Knowledge Discoveryand Data Mining. 887-895. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3097983.3098118 (ACM, Halifax, NS, Canada, 2017). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Konečny`, J., McMahan, H. B., Ramage, D. & Richtárik, P. Federated optimization: Distributed machine learning for on-device intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02527 (2016). · arXiv
  34. Lalitha, A., Kilinc, O. C., Javidi, T. & Koushanfar, F. Peer-to-peer federated learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11173 (2019). · arXiv
  35. Li, T., Sahu, A. K., Zaheer, M., Sanjabi, M., Talwalkar, A. & Smith, V. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06127 (2018). · arXiv
  36. Li, X., Huang, K., Yang, W., Wang, S. & Zhang, Z. On the convergence of fedavg on non-IID data. https://openreview.net/forum?id=HJxNAnVtDS (2020).
  37. Wu, B. et al. P3sgd: patient privacy preserving SGD for regularizing deep CNNs in pathological image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2099-2108) (2019).
  38. Zhu, L., Liu, Z. & Han, S. Deep leakage from gradients. In Wallach, H. M. et al. (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 14747-14756. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 9617-deep-leakage-from-gradients (2019).
  39. Wang, Z. et al. Beyond inferring class representatives: user-level privacy leakage from federated learning. In 2019 {IEEE} Conferenceon Computer Communications, {INFOCOM} 2512-2520. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2019.8737416 (IEEE, Paris, France, 2019). · DOI · Paper page
  40. Hitaj, B., Ateniese, G. & Perez-Cruz, F. Deep models under the gan: information leakage from collaborative deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS'17, 603-618 (Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017).
  41. Ghorbani, A. & Zou, J. Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 2242-2251) (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rieke, N., Hancox, J., Li, W., Milletari, F., Roth, H., Albarqouni, S., Bakas, S., Galtier, M. N., Landman, B., Maier-Hein, K., Ourselin, S., Sheller, M., Summers, R. M., Trask, A., Xu, D., Baust, M., & Cardoso, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Nvidia (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Nvidia (United States) (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Rieke, Nicola
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
119-119
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2003.08119
arXiv
2003.08119
OpenAlex
W3012501605
Cited by
3,495
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1124 · 2025: 814 · 2024: 563 · 2023: 455 · 2022: 347 · 2021: 174 · 2020: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (R01NS042645, U01CA242871)
  • Wellcome Trust
  • UK Research and Innovation
  • Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • National Institutes of Health (1s10od023495-01)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ([WT203148/Z/16/Z], WT213038/Z/18/Z)
  • Centre For Medical Engineering, King’s College London (WT 203148/Z/16/Z)
  • National Cancer Institute (U24CA189523, U01CA242871)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS042645)
  • NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
federated learning, digital health, medical data privacy, data silos, data-driven machine learning, health information access

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