Home › Research › Biomarkers
MERGE: A model for multi-input biomedical federated learning
Casella B, Riviera W, Aldinucci M, Menegaz G.. Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2023-10-06
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Driven by the deep learning (DL) revolution, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a fundamental tool for many biomedical tasks, including analyzing and classifying diagnostic images. Imaging, however, is not the only source of information. Tabular data, such as personal and genomic data and blood test results, are routinely collected but rarely considered in DL pipelines. Nevertheless, DL requires large datasets that often must be pooled from different institutions, raising non-trivial privacy concerns. Federated learning (FL) is a cooperative learning paradigm that aims to address these issues by moving models instead of data across different institutions. Here, we present a federated multi-input architecture using images and tabular data as a methodology to enhance model performance while preserving data privacy. We evaluated it on two showcases: the prognosis of COVID-19 and patients' stratification in Alzheimer's disease, providing evidence of enhanced accuracy and F1 scores against single-input models and improved generalizability against non-federated models.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Casella, B., Riviera, W., Aldinucci, M., & Menegaz, G. (2023). MERGE: A model for multi-input biomedical federated learning. Patterns (New York, N.Y.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100856
Vancouver
Casella B, Riviera W, Aldinucci M, Menegaz G. MERGE: A model for multi-input biomedical federated learning. Patterns (New York, N.Y.). 2023. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100856. PMID: 38035188.
BibTeX
@article{casella2023-38035188,
author = {Casella, B. and Riviera, W. and Aldinucci, M. and Menegaz, G.},
title = {{MERGE: A model for multi-input biomedical federated learning}},
journal = {Patterns (New York, N.Y.)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1016/j.patter.2023.100856},
pmid = {38035188},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100856}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Tabular data, such as personal and genomic data and blood test results, are routinely collected but rarely considered in DL pipelines.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Patterns (New York, N.Y.)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38035188) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also in Biomarkers
208 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.