A systematic review of federated learning applications for biomedical data

51Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives Federated learning (FL) allows multiple institutions to collaboratively develop a machine learning algorithm without sharing their data. Organizations instead share model parameters only, allowing them to benefit from a model built with a larger dataset while maintaining the privacy of their own data. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the current state of FL in healthcare and discuss the limitations and promise of this technology. Methods We conducted a literature search using PRISMA guidelines. At least two reviewers assessed each study for eligibility and extracted a predetermined set of data. The quality of each study was determined using the TRIPOD guideline and PROBAST tool. Results 13 studies were included in the full systematic review. Most were in the field of oncology (6 of 13; 46.1%), followed by radiology (5 of 13; 38.5%). The majority evaluated imaging results, performed a binary classification prediction task via offline learning (n = 12; 92.3%), and used a centralized topology, aggregation server workflow (n = 10; 76.9%). Most studies were compliant with the major reporting requirements of the TRIPOD guidelines. In all, 6 of 13 (46.2%) of studies were judged at high risk of bias using the PROBAST tool and only 5 studies used publicly available data. Conclusion Federated learning is a growing field in machine learning with many promising uses in healthcare. Few studies have been published to date. Our evaluation found that investigators can do more to address the risk of bias and increase transparency by adding steps for data homogeneity or sharing required metadata and code.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Crowson, M. G., Moukheiber, D., Arévalo, A. R., Lam, B. D., Mantena, S., Rana, A., … Celi, L. A. (2022). A systematic review of federated learning applications for biomedical data. PLOS Digital Health, 1(5 May). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000033

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free