Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Federated-Continual Dynamic Segmentation of Histopathology guided by Barlow Continuity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single server-side filter, Dynamic Barlow Continuity, jointly reduces Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting by rejecting model updates whose predictions on public reference patches change too abruptly.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting server-side filter idea undone by a sign error: Eq. 1 defines a similarity but Algorithm 1 treats it as a distance, so the published selection rule would accept exactly the updates it claims to reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04588 v1 pith:3VG6F3CI submitted 2025-01-08 cs.LG cs.AI

Niklas Babendererde , Haozhe Zhu , Moritz Fuchs , Jonathan Stieber , Anirban Mukhopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords DynamicBarlowContinuityFederatedLearningContinualClientDriftCatastrophicForgettingHistopathologySegmentationSpatio-temporalShiftInvarianceModelUpdateFiltering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting can be tackled together by one mechanism, because both are symptoms of spatio-temporal shift: model updates that react erratically to small input variations are the ones that hurt generalization. The proposed Dynamic Barlow Continuity (DynBC) measures how much a candidate model update changes predictions on an unlabeled public reference dataset compared with the current model, and the server discards updates that exceed a dynamically tracked threshold. It reports dice-score gains in histopathology segmentation (BCSS and Semicol) for both failure modes and their combination, with improvements up to 15.8% to 71.6% in Client Drift and 42.5% to 62.8% in Catastrophic Forgetting. A sympathetic reader would care because a single privacy-preserving aggregation rule, needing no access to raw patient data or knowledge of the shift, could make deployed medical segmentation models more reliable as hospitals and patient populations change.

What carries the argument

Dynamic Barlow Continuity (DynBC), given by $\mathrm{DynBC} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N} \langle m_s(a(x_n)), m_c(a(x_n))\rangle$, is the average dot product between the current server or continual-learning model $m_s$ and the candidate update $m_c$ on $N$ reference patches, each augmented by one random augmentation $a$. It adapts the Barlow Twins redundancy-reduction objective from comparing two views of the same input to comparing two model states on the same augmented inputs, so the distance measures whether a proposed update causes abrupt prediction changes on diverse reference data. This distance is combined with a threshold factor, default 2.0, applied to the running maximum DynBC, so that only gradual updates are accepted and the training process is guided toward a shift-invariant parameter representation.

What would settle it

Compare DynBC scores of model updates against their true effect on a held-out shifted test set: if some updates with low DynBC are followed by large dice drops on that set, or if an adversarial update that preserves reference predictions while corrupting test predictions is accepted by the server, the proxy is falsified. Concretely, train a client to output the same masks as the server on the Camelyon17 reference patches but random masks elsewhere, submit it, and check whether the server accepts the update.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a small DynBC distance—the average dot product of the current and updated model's segmentation predictions on augmented, unlabeled reference patches—is a reliable indicator that a model update improves shift invariance, and that filtering updates by the ratio of this distance to the running maximum jointly alleviates Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting. DynBC is applied at the server during aggregation: in the spatial (Federated) case, client updates that exceed the threshold are ignored; in the temporal (Continual) case, the whole step is rolled back. The authors evaluate on a U-Net trained on BCSS and Semicol with Camelyon17 as the reference set, and report that DynBC outperforms Rehearsal and FedAdam in the combined setting and reaches performance comparable to FedWeIT without requiring task or shift knowledge. The method is presented as establishing spatio-temporal shift-invariance for dynamic learning.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a small DynBC distance, meaning similar predictions on the public reference patches, is a valid proxy for spatio-temporal shift invariance and better generalization; it is never validated against ground-truth shift labels, so a harmful update that makes the same wrong predictions as the old model on the reference set could pass the filter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DynBC can be added purely at the server aggregation step, so it works with existing federated and continual learning algorithms without changing client training.
  • It jointly improves dice score under Client Drift (for example from 15.8% to 71.6%) and Catastrophic Forgetting (for example from 42.5% to 62.8%) with a single method.
  • It preserves privacy because it relies on a separate public reference dataset rather than on samples from old or distributed training data.
  • It does not require knowledge of the shift type or task boundaries, unlike task-incremental methods such as FedWeIT.
  • The threshold factor is architecture-independent because it operates on predicted segmentation masks rather than on model parameters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the continuity assumption holds, the same filter could transfer to other imaging domains where spatial and temporal shifts co-occur, such as radiology or dermatology, using a public reference set from the same anatomy.
  • Beyond the paper: the DynBC distance could be repurposed as an out-of-distribution detector for incoming client updates, flagging suspicious shifts before they are aggregated.
  • Beyond the paper: the default threshold factor of 2.0 appears sensitive to the reference dataset's diversity and to the augmentation choice, since the ablation shows sharp performance drops at 1.9 and 2.1, so production deployment would likely require per-domain tuning.
  • Beyond the paper: a testable extension is to use a reference set drawn from the same distribution as the training data instead of an external public set, which would isolate whether the benefit comes from continuity filtering itself or from the reference domain's similarity to the task.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Dynamic Barlow Continuity (DynBC), a server-side evaluation metric that compares the segmentation predictions of a candidate model update with those of the current global model on augmented patches from a public reference dataset. The method uses this score to filter client updates in federated learning (spatial shifts) and to accept or roll back model updates in continual learning (temporal shifts), with the goal of jointly mitigating Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting. Experiments on BCSS and Semicol with synthetic brightness and blur shifts compare DynBC against baselines, Rehearsal, FedAdam, and FedWeIT, and report large improvements in dice score in several scenarios.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it fills a real gap: a single, privacy-preserving mechanism for handling both spatial and temporal distribution shifts in histopathology segmentation. The evaluation is broad, covering separate and combined CD/CF scenarios, multiple datasets, multiple seeds, and relevant comparison methods, and the paper includes ablations. However, the central quantity is defined inconsistently, and the validity of the underlying proxy is not established; these issues affect the core mechanism, so the current version cannot be accepted without substantial clarification and validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1] The quantity defined in Eq. (1) is a dot-product similarity: DynBC = (1/N) Σ ⟨m_s(a(x_n)), m_c(a(x_n))⟩, which is large when the two models agree on the reference patches and zero when they have no overlapping positive predictions. Algorithm 1 and the prose ('small distance', 'exceed this maximum distance') treat it as a distance, rejecting updates with large values. If the implementation follows Eq. (1), the selection rule is inverted: an update that erases all predictions on the reference set yields DynBC ≈ 0 and is always accepted, while a similar update that increases overlap can exceed the threshold and be rejected. If the implementation instead uses a true distance (e.g., a norm of the difference), then Eq. (1) and Section 3.1.1, which explicitly justifies the dot product as a 'similarity metric', are wrong. Either way, the paper's central mechanism is internally inconsistent, and the reported improvements cannot be attributed to the described algorithm as written. This must be fixed and the experiments re-linked to the corrected definition.
  2. [Algorithm 1, initialization of δmax] In Algorithm 1, δmax starts at 0. For the first client update, any positive δ (which occurs for any non-identical models) satisfies δ > δmax, and the acceptance condition δ <= thδ * δmax is δ <= 0, which is false. Therefore the first client update is always rejected. The text in Section 3.2 mentions an 'initialization phase', but the pseudocode does not implement one. This is a load-bearing bug: even if δ is a true distance, the algorithm as written discards the first update, and if the first client carries useful information, it is lost. The pseudocode needs an explicit initialization phase or a different handling of the first update.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.1, validity of DynBC as a proxy] DynBC is computed on unlabeled patches from Camelyon17, a different dataset and tissue domain than the evaluation datasets BCSS and Semicol, and it measures agreement between two model predictions, not agreement with ground truth. Two models that both predict the same wrong masks on the reference data would be considered 'continuous', so the score does not directly measure shift-invariance or generalization. The paper provides no empirical evidence that DynBC correlates with segmentation quality on the target datasets; the ablation in Table 4 only varies the reference augmentations, not the core proxy. To support the load-bearing assumption, the authors should add an analysis (e.g., on a labeled validation set) showing that the DynBC score is predictive of performance, or provide a stronger theoretical justification for why agreement on an unrelated public dataset implies spatio-temporal shift-invariance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 1–3 and abstract] Several reported improvements are within one standard deviation of the baseline (e.g., Table 2, BCSS Brightness CF: 0.628 ± 0.308 vs. 0.425 ± 0.245; Table 3, BCSS Gaussian Blur: 0.698 ± 0.21 vs. 0.579 ± 0.062). The paper does not report significance tests or confidence intervals; the abstract's strongest claims ('from 15.8% to 71.6%') should be tempered or accompanied by statistical evidence.
  2. [Section 3.1.1] The text states that the dot product is a 'similarity metric' while the method and Algorithm 1 refer to a 'distance'. Please reconcile the terminology throughout, since this directly contributes to the inconsistency described in the major comments.
  3. [Section 4.1] The reference dataset Camelyon17 is a lymph-node metastasis dataset, whereas the evaluation datasets are breast (BCSS) and colorectal (Semicol) cancer. The paper should discuss whether the domain gap between reference and target affects the validity of DynBC, or report sensitivity to the choice of reference dataset.
  4. [Algorithm 1, CL step] In the continual-learning step, the check `DynBC(modelserver, newmodelserver) <= thδ * δmax` uses the δmax that may have been updated during the FL loop. If no FL updates were aggregated, δmax can remain 0 and the CL update would also be rejected; clarify the intended state of δmax and the behavior when the FL phase produces no accepted update.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Mild circularity: DynBC's continuity premise rests on the authors' own prior assumption, and the 2.0 threshold is tuned on the reported test scenarios; the core evaluation is otherwise empirical.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1, Section 4.5.2, Algorithm 1, Tables 1-3]
    "We chose the default threshold factor of 2.0 in this work as it showed good performance. ... The results indicate that the threshold factor 2.0 provides the best performance, supporting our decision to use this parameter in our work."

    The threshold factor directly controls whether a client or continual update is accepted (Algorithm 1 uses thδ = 2.0). The paper selects 2.0 after observing dice scores on the BCSS Catastrophic Forgetting scenario (Table 5), and the same scenario is then reported as evidence in Table 2, with the same threshold applied in all CD/CF/combined experiments. Thus the acceptance rule is tuned on the very test setups that are later presented as independent evaluation; part of the reported improvement is forced by the hyperparameter selection rather than predicted by the method.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 1, Introduction]
    "We assume spatio-temporal continuity, meaning gradual data drift over space and time corresponds to gradual drift to the main model [3]. Hence, we conclude that unstable, shifted models are causing drastic prediction changes on minor input variations."

    The entire rationale for interpreting a small DynBC as shift invariance rests on the premise that gradual distribution shifts cause drastic prediction changes on minor input variations. That premise is not derived or tested in this paper; it is attributed to reference [3], a prior paper by the same first author and research group. If [3] also merely assumes this premise, the load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The paper is transparent that it is an assumption, so this is a partial rather than total circularity.

full rationale

The paper is primarily an empirical method paper rather than a formal derivation, so most of its claims are supported by experiments on external datasets (BCSS, Semicol, with Camelyon17 as a separate public reference set). I do not find a fitted equation whose output equals its input, nor a prediction that is literally the same quantity used to fit a parameter. The main circularity-adjacent issues are: (i) the threshold factor 2.0 is selected after observing performance on the same BCSS Catastrophic Forgetting scenario later used as evidence, making part of the reported improvement statistically forced; and (ii) the load-bearing assumption of spatio-temporal continuity is attributed to the authors' own prior work [3], so the interpretation of DynBC as a shift-invariance proxy bottoms out in a self-citation rather than an independent, verified result. Separately, Eq. 1 defines DynBC as a dot product (a similarity measure) while Algorithm 1 treats it as a distance; this is a serious correctness risk, but it is an internal inconsistency rather than circular reasoning, so I do not count it toward the circularity score beyond the partial reduction already noted. Overall, the empirical content and external benchmarks give the central claim independent substance, but the threshold tuning and self-cited premise warrant a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on several user-chosen hyperparameters (threshold factor, reference augmentations, reference dataset, number of reference patches) and on unvalidated assumptions connecting prediction agreement to model quality.

free parameters (4)
  • DynBC threshold factor th_delta = 2.0
    Chosen as default after showing best performance in ablation on BCSS CF (Table 5); otherwise not derived.
  • Reference augmentation set = Gaussian Blur (kernel 19, sigma 4.0), Motion Blur (limit 29), Gaussian Noise (variance limit 1000)
    Selected via ablation (Table 4) because they improve CD performance on BCSS brightness; not theoretically justified.
  • Number of reference patches N = 1125 (Camelyon17 validation patches)
    Chosen by the authors; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Reference dataset = Camelyon17
    A public histopathology dataset chosen by the authors; representativeness for BCSS/Semicol is assumed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spatio-temporal continuity: gradual data drift over space and time corresponds to gradual drift of the main model.
    Stated in Section 1; without it, filtering based on continuity has no justification.
  • domain assumption Unstable, shifted models cause drastic prediction changes on minor input variations.
    Stated in Section 1 as the motivation for using prediction changes as a signal.
  • domain assumption The dot product between predicted segmentation masks is a valid measure of distance for binary masks.
    Argued in Section 3.1.1 based on overlap measurement and sparsity; no theoretical or empirical validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Agreement on the public reference dataset implies shift-invariance and better generalization.
    This is the central assumption linking DynBC to model quality; it is not formally proven and could fail if both models make the same mistakes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated-Continual Dynamic Segmentation of Histopathology guided by Barlow Continuity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3VG6F3CI

@misc{pith2026250104588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated-Continual Dynamic Segmentation of Histopathology guided by Barlow Continuity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3VG6F3CI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04588}
}
read the original abstract

Federated- and Continual Learning have been established as approaches to enable privacy-aware learning on continuously changing data, as required for deploying AI systems in histopathology images. However, data shifts can occur in a dynamic world, spatially between institutions and temporally, due to changing data over time. This leads to two issues: Client Drift, where the central model degrades from aggregating data from clients trained on shifted data, and Catastrophic Forgetting, from temporal shifts such as changes in patient populations. Both tend to degrade the model's performance of previously seen data or spatially distributed training. Despite both problems arising from the same underlying problem of data shifts, existing research addresses them only individually. In this work, we introduce a method that can jointly alleviate Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting by using our proposed Dynamic Barlow Continuity that evaluates client updates on a public reference dataset and uses this to guide the training process to a spatially and temporally shift-invariant model. We evaluate our approach on the histopathology datasets BCSS and Semicol and prove our method to be highly effective by jointly improving the dice score as much as from 15.8% to 71.6% in Client Drift and from 42.5% to 62.8% in Catastrophic Forgetting. This enables Dynamic Learning by establishing spatio-temporal shift-invariance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DynBC detects drastic changes of predictions from spatio-temporally trained models (left). It guides the training process to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DynBC (1) measures the shift invariance of a model update. A small DynBC indicates less biased to a certain distribution, as it shows shift invariance when updating. DynBC for Dynamic Learning (2): We compare each potential model update to the previous Continual Learning (CL) or global Federated Learning (FL) model. The resulting distance decides, whether the update is applied or ignored. Federated Continual Learnin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Setting of the experiments for Client Drift, Catastrophic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of our method (DynBC) with Rehearsal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unleashing the Power of Continual Learning on Non-Centralized Devices: A Survey

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review of non-centralized continual learning that taxonomizes data-, model-, and device-level methods and benchmarks twelve federated continual learning methods on six datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget

    Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuytelaars. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 139–154, 2018. 2

    2018

  2. [2]

    Structured crowdsourcing enables convolutional segmenta- tion of histology images

    Mohamed Amgad, Habiba Elfandy, Hagar Hussein, Lamees A Atteya, Mai AT Elsebaie, Lamia S Abo Elnasr, Rokia A Sakr, Hazem SE Salem, Ahmed F Ismail, et al. Structured crowdsourcing enables convolutional segmenta- tion of histology images. Bioinformatics, 2019. 2, 5

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Jointly Exploring Client Drift and Catastrophic Forgetting in Dynamic Learning

    Niklas Babendererde, Moritz Fuchs, Camila Gonzalez, Yuri Tolkach, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay. Jointly exploring client drift and catastrophic forgetting in dynamic learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00688, 2023. 1, 2, 6

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Continual learning strategies for cancer- independent detection of lymph node metastases

    P ´eter B ´andi, Maschenka Balkenhol, Marcory Van Dijk, Michel Kok, Bram van Ginneken, Jeroen van der Laak, and Geert Litjens. Continual learning strategies for cancer- independent detection of lymph node metastases. Medical Image Analysis, 85:102755, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the pa- tient level: the camelyon17 challenge

    Peter Bandi, Oscar Geessink, Quirine Manson, Mar- cory Van Dijk, Maschenka Balkenhol, Meyke Hermsen, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Byungjae Lee, Kyunghyun Paeng, Aoxiao Zhong, et al. From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the pa- tient level: the camelyon17 challenge. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 38(2):550–5...

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Relay learning: a physically secure framework for clinical multi-site deep learning

    Zi-Hao Bo, Yuchen Guo, Jinhao Lyu, Hengrui Liang, Jianx- ing He, Shijie Deng, Feng Xu, Xin Lou, and Qionghai Dai. Relay learning: a physically secure framework for clinical multi-site deep learning. NPJ Digital Medicine, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmenta- tions

    Alexander Buslaev, Vladimir I Iglovikov, Eugene Khved- chenya, Alex Parinov, Mikhail Druzhinin, and Alexandr A Kalinin. Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmenta- tions. Information, 2020. 5

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 2

    2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Distance-based detection of out-of-distribution silent failures for covid- 19 lung lesion segmentation

    Camila Gonz ´alez, Karol Gotkowski, Moritz Fuchs, Andreas Bucher, Armin Dadras, Ricarda Fischbach, Isabel Jasmin Kaltenborn, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay. Distance-based detection of out-of-distribution silent failures for covid- 19 lung lesion segmentation. Medical image analysis...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altch ´e, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Ghesh- laghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neur...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Distill- ing the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distill- ing the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. 2

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Comprehensive ai model de- velopment for gleason grading: From scanning, cloud-based annotation to pathologist-ai interaction

    Xinmi Huo, Kok Haur Ong, Kah Weng Lau, Laurent Gole, Char Loo Tan, Chongchong Zhang, Yonghui Zhang, Xiaohui Zhu, Longjie Li, Hao Han, et al. Comprehensive ai model de- velopment for gleason grading: From scanning, cloud-based annotation to pathologist-ai interaction. 2022. 1

    2022

  5. [13]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 ,

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska- Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neu- ral networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sc...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Clinical applications of con- tinual learning machine learning

    Cecilia S Lee and Aaron Y Lee. Clinical applications of con- tinual learning machine learning. The Lancet Digital Health,

  8. [16]

    Di- mensions of health data integrity

    Jochen K Lennerz, Nick Schneider, and Karl Lauterbach. Di- mensions of health data integrity. European Journal of Epi- demiology, 2024. 1

    2024

  9. [17]

    Federated learning for multi- center imaging diagnostics: a simulation study in cardiovas- cular disease

    Akis Linardos, Kaisar Kushibar, Sean Walsh, Polyxeni Gkontra, and Karim Lekadir. Federated learning for multi- center imaging diagnostics: a simulation study in cardiovas- cular disease. Scientific Reports, 2022. 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images

    Ming Y Lu, Richard J Chen, Dehan Kong, Jana Lipkova, Rajendra Singh, Drew FK Williamson, Tiffany Y Chen, and Faisal Mahmood. Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images. Medical image analysis, 76:102298, 2022. 1

    2022

  11. [19]

    Torchvision the machine-vision package of torch

    S ´ebastien Marcel and Yann Rodriguez. Torchvision the machine-vision package of torch. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2010. 5

    2010

  12. [20]

    Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017. 2, 6

    2017

  13. [21]

    Cancer Research in the Time of COVID-19: A Colombian Narrative

    Ra ´ul Murillo, Ginna Fern ´andez-Deaza, Mar ´ıa Zuluaga, Grant Lewison, Diana Usgame-Zubieta, Iv´an Dar´ıo Usgame- Zubieta, and Mar´ıa Margarita Manrique. Cancer Research in the Time of COVID-19: A Colombian Narrative. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Jan. 2022. 1

    2022

  14. [22]

    Semicol challenge, 2023

    European Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ES- DIP). Semicol challenge, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  15. [23]

    Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems ...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Dynamic memory to alleviate catastrophic for- getting in continual learning with medical imaging

    Matthias Perkonigg, Johannes Hofmanninger, Christian J Herold, James A Brink, Oleg Pianykh, Helmut Prosch, and Georg Langs. Dynamic memory to alleviate catastrophic for- getting in continual learning with medical imaging. Nature communications, 2021. 1

    2021

  17. [25]

    Continual atlas-based segmentation of prostate mri

    Amin Ranem, Camila Gonz ´alez, Daniel Pinto dos San- tos, Andreas M Bucher, Ahmed E Othman, and Anir- ban Mukhopadhyay. Continual atlas-based segmentation of prostate mri. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF WACV, pages 7563–7572, 2024. 2

    2024

  18. [26]

    icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning

    Sylvestre-Alvise Rebuffi, Alexander Kolesnikov, Georg Sperl, and Christoph H Lampert. icarl: Incremental classifier and representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2001–2010, 2017. 2, 6

    2001

  19. [27]

    Adaptive federated optimization

    Sashank J Reddi, Zachary Charles, Manzil Zaheer, Zachary Garrett, Keith Rush, Jakub Kone ˇcn`y, Sanjiv Kumar, and Hugh Brendan McMahan. Adaptive federated optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations ,

  20. [28]

    The future of digital health with federated learning.NPJ dig- ital medicine, 2020

    Nicola Rieke, Jonny Hancox, Wenqi Li, Fausto Milletari, Holger R Roth, Shadi Albarqouni, Spyridon Bakas, Math- ieu N Galtier, Bennett A Landman, Klaus Maier-Hein, et al. The future of digital health with federated learning.NPJ dig- ital medicine, 2020. 1

    2020

  21. [29]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Pa...

    2015

  22. [30]

    Asynchronous federated continual learning

    Donald Shenaj, Marco Toldo, Alberto Rigon, and Pietro Zanuttigh. Asynchronous federated continual learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 5055–5063, 2023. 3

    2023

  23. [31]

    Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology

    Karin Stacke, Gabriel Eilertsen, Jonas Unger, and Claes Lundstr¨om. Measuring domain shift for deep learning in histopathology. IEEE J-BHI, 2020. 1

    2020

  24. [32]

    Froodo: Framework for out-of-distribution detection

    Jonathan Stieber, Moritz Fuchs, and Anirban Mukhopad- hyay. Froodo: Framework for out-of-distribution detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.00963, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A review of artifacts in histopathol- ogy

    Syed Ahmed Taqi, Syed Abdus Sami, Lateef Begum Sami, and Syed Ahmed Zaki. A review of artifacts in histopathol- ogy. Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology: JOMFP ,

  26. [34]

    Federated stain normalization for compu- tational pathology

    Nicolas Wagner, Moritz Fuchs, Yuri Tolkach, and Anirban Mukhopadhyay. Federated stain normalization for compu- tational pathology. In International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 14–23. Springer, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  27. [35]

    Adap- tive federated learning in resource constrained edge comput- ing systems

    Shiqiang Wang, Tiffany Tuor, Theodoros Salonidis, Kin K Leung, Christian Makaya, Ting He, and Kevin Chan. Adap- tive federated learning in resource constrained edge comput- ing systems. IEEE journal on selected areas in communica- tions, 37(6):1205–1221, 2019. 3

    2019

  28. [36]

    A comparative study of perfor- mance between federated learning and centralized learning using pathological image of endometrial cancer

    Jong Chan Yeom, Jae Hoon Kim, Young Jae Kim, Jisup Kim, and Kwang Gi Kim. A comparative study of perfor- mance between federated learning and centralized learning using pathological image of endometrial cancer. Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Federated continual learning with weighted inter-client transfer

    Jaehong Yoon, Wonyong Jeong, Giwoong Lee, Eunho Yang, and Sung Ju Hwang. Federated continual learning with weighted inter-client transfer. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12073–12086. PMLR, 2021. 3

    2021

  30. [38]

    Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction

    Jure Zbontar, Li Jing, Ishan Misra, Yann LeCun, and St´ephane Deny. Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction. In International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, pages 12310–12320. PMLR, 2021. 2, 3

    2021

  31. [39]

    Target: Federated class-continual learning via exemplar-free distillation

    Jie Zhang, Chen Chen, Weiming Zhuang, and Lingjuan Lyu. Target: Federated class-continual learning via exemplar-free distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4782–4793, 2023. 3

    2023

  32. [40]

    Federated learning with non-iid data

    Yue Zhao, Meng Li, Liangzhen Lai, Naveen Suda, Damon Civin, and Vikas Chandra. Federated learning with non-iid data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00582, 2018. 1

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.