Purpose: The present scoping review aims to assess the non-inferiority of distributed learning over centrally and locally trained machine learning (ML) models in medical applications. Methods: We performed a literature search using the term “distributed learning” OR “federated learning” in the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. No start date limit was used, and the search was extended until July 21, 2020. We excluded articles outside the field of interest; guidelines or expert opinion, review articles and meta-analyses, editorials, letters or commentaries, and conference abstracts; articles not in the English language; and studies not using medical data. Selected studies were classified and analysed according to their aim(s). Results: We included 26 papers aimed at predicting one or more outcomes: namely risk, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment side effect/adverse drug reaction. Distributed learning was compared to centralized or localized training in 21/26 and 14/26 selected papers, respectively. Regardless of the aim, the type of input, the method, and the classifier, distributed learning performed close to centralized training, but two experiments focused on diagnosis. In all but 2 cases, distributed learning outperformed locally trained models. Conclusion: Distributed learning resulted in a reliable strategy for model development; indeed, it performed equally to models trained on centralized datasets. Sensitive data can get preserved since they are not shared for model development. Distributed learning constitutes a promising solution for ML-based research and practice since large, diverse datasets are crucial for success.

Distributed learning: a reliable privacy-preserving strategy to change multicenter collaborations using AI

Loiacono D.;Giacomello E.;Gozzi N.;Amigoni F.;Mainardi L.;Lanzi P;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: The present scoping review aims to assess the non-inferiority of distributed learning over centrally and locally trained machine learning (ML) models in medical applications. Methods: We performed a literature search using the term “distributed learning” OR “federated learning” in the PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. No start date limit was used, and the search was extended until July 21, 2020. We excluded articles outside the field of interest; guidelines or expert opinion, review articles and meta-analyses, editorials, letters or commentaries, and conference abstracts; articles not in the English language; and studies not using medical data. Selected studies were classified and analysed according to their aim(s). Results: We included 26 papers aimed at predicting one or more outcomes: namely risk, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment side effect/adverse drug reaction. Distributed learning was compared to centralized or localized training in 21/26 and 14/26 selected papers, respectively. Regardless of the aim, the type of input, the method, and the classifier, distributed learning performed close to centralized training, but two experiments focused on diagnosis. In all but 2 cases, distributed learning outperformed locally trained models. Conclusion: Distributed learning resulted in a reliable strategy for model development; indeed, it performed equally to models trained on centralized datasets. Sensitive data can get preserved since they are not shared for model development. Distributed learning constitutes a promising solution for ML-based research and practice since large, diverse datasets are crucial for success.
2021
Clinical trial
Distributed learning
Ethics
Federated learning
Machine learning
Privacy
Databases, Factual
Humans
Machine Learning
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Research Design
Algorithms
Privacy
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Kirienko2021_Article_DistributedLearningAReliablePr.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 1.75 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.75 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1204492
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact