Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

FedWSIDD: Federated Whole Slide Image Classification via Dataset Distillation

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FedWSIDD claims that federated whole-slide image classification works better when centres exchange distilled synthetic slides instead of model parameters, and reports higher accuracy on two lymph-node metastasis benchmarks.

desk verdict A plausible and well-executed empirical paper on federated WSI classification via synthetic slides, but the distillation objective is under-constrained and the headline numbers are partly tuned on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15365 v1 pith:NJYIAEVT submitted 2025-06-18 eess.IV cs.CV

Haolong Jin , Shenglin Liu , Cong Cong , Qingmin Feng , Yongzhi Liu , Lina Huang , Yingzi Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords federatedlearningwholeslideimageclassificationdatasetdistillationmultipleinstancestainnormalisationCAMELYON16CAMELYON17heterogeneousmodels
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 proposes that the right unit of exchange in federated whole-slide image classification is not the model update but a compact set of synthetic slides. Each centre distils its real slides into synthetic patches by matching mean feature vectors, sends the synthetic slides to a server, which redistributes the union to all centres for local training. On CAMELYON16 and CAMELYON17, the scheme reports higher average accuracy than standard federated methods (FedHisto, FedDyn, MOON, FedImpro, FedMut) and personalised federated methods (FedDM, FedProto, DESA, FedD3, FedDGM, SGPT), in both homogeneous and heterogeneous local-model settings. The authors argue that this makes FL practical for resource-heterogeneous pathology centres and that transmitting synthetic images rather than patient-derived patches offers a privacy benefit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the synthetic slide: a bag of $B=100$ learnable $64\times64$ patches, optimised to match the class-conditional mean of real patch features after stain normalisation. Matching happens in the embedding space of a shared ImageNet-pretrained ResNet50, not in pixel space and not against a particular MIL classifier, which is what makes the synthetic slides consumable by any MIL head (CLAM, ABMIL, TransMIL). The communication mechanism is the set union of these synthetic slides; because the server never touches model weights or gradients, centres can run different architectures and still share information.

What would settle it

Train a MIL classifier on one centre's real slides plus FedWSIDD synthetic slides from another centre, then swap the feature extractor from ResNet50 to a vision transformer; if the accuracy gain over local-only training disappears, the heterogeneous-flexibility claim fails. More directly, compute the average pairwise distance between synthetic slides of the same class generated for one centre: if it is near zero while real same-class slides show large spread, the mean-matching objective has collapsed intra-class diversity and the synthetic set cannot represent tumour heterogeneity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a feature-space dataset distillation objective, augmented with stain normalisation, can compress a local WSI dataset into a small number of synthetic slides that carry enough class-discriminative information to improve every participating centre's MIL classifier. In Eq. (3), each distillation step samples one real and one synthetic slide per class, normalises both, and minimises the squared distance between the mean feature vector of the real patches and the mean feature vector of the synthetic patches. The optimised synthetic slides are transmitted instead of model weights; the server aggregates them by set union and redistributes them. Empirically the paper reports 90.1% average accuracy on CAMELYON16 and 81.2% on CAMELYON17 under homogeneous CLAM models, and 84.8% and 77.6% respectively under heterogeneous models, with p-values below 0.05 against the baselines it compares.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on Eq. (3)'s assumption that matching the mean feature vector of synthetic patches to the mean feature vector of real patches, per class, produces synthetic slides that are class-discriminative and useful to every centre's MIL model; nothing in the objective enforces intra-class diversity, inter-class separation, or transferability to feature extractors other than the shared ResNet50.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If each centre receives synthetic slides distilled from other centres' data, local MIL training on the merged set improves over local-only training and over existing federated methods, so collaboration can happen without exchanging weights or gradients.
  • Because the synthetic patches are optimised in the feature space of a fixed pretrained extractor rather than against one classifier, the same transmitted slides can be plugged into CLAM, ABMIL, and TransMIL, enabling heterogeneous local models.
  • A single round of communication, preceded by 1000 local distillation rounds, is sufficient for the reported gains, meaning FedWSIDD can operate with one-shot communication.
  • Since only synthetic images move between centres, the authors claim the protocol desensitises patient information, while noting that the synthetic nature reduces explainability of the shared data.
  • The reported p-values below 0.05 across many baseline comparisons suggest that the accuracy gains are unlikely to be pure chance under the paper's fixed-split experimental protocol.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the privacy benefit is asserted from the synthetic nature of the images but not formally demonstrated; a membership-inference attack on the transmitted synthetic slides would be a concrete way to test whether patient information is actually protected.
  • Editorial inference: the one-shot protocol leaves multi-round communication unexplored; iterative rounds of distillation could either amplify the gains or introduce drift, and the paper does not address that trade-off.
  • Editorial inference: the mean-feature matching objective is sensitive to the choice of stain normalisation; swapping Macenko normalisation for a learned normalisation method would likely change the distilled slides' quality and could be a testable extension.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not quantify communication cost in bytes against model-weight exchange; a direct comparison of transmission size versus FedHisto or FedProto would clarify the practical bandwidth advantage.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FedWSIDD, a federated learning framework for whole-slide image (WSI) classification in which each centre distils a small set of synthetic slides by matching the mean feature vector of real and synthetic patches in a frozen ResNet50 feature space, with stain normalization applied during distillation. The synthetic slides, rather than model parameters, are uploaded to a server, aggregated, and redistributed to all centres, which then train their local MIL models on real plus received synthetic slides. Experiments on CAMELYON16 and CAMELYON17 compare FedWSIDD with standard and personalised federated learning baselines under homogeneous and heterogeneous MIL-head settings, reporting higher average accuracy (CA16 90.1%, CA17 81.2% in the homogeneous case) together with ablations of the number of synthetic slides and patches and of stain normalization.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, FedWSIDD offers a genuinely interesting communication medium for federated WSI classification: exchanging compact synthetic slides instead of model weights makes the framework agnostic to local MIL architectures and potentially communication-efficient. The paper provides quantitative comparisons with several baselines, standard deviations over five runs, paired t-test p-values, and a stated intention to release code, which are all useful. However, the specific claims around informativeness of the distilled slides, privacy preservation, and flexibility to different feature extractors currently go beyond what the experiments demonstrate.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3)] The distillation objective matches only the mean feature vector of one real slide and one synthetic slide per class. This objective is invariant to permutation and duplication within the synthetic bag, so an optimal solution could be a bag of identical patches whose common embedding equals the target mean. CLAM, ABMIL, and TransMIL all use attention or score pooling over patch embeddings and are therefore sensitive to the distribution of patch-level evidence, not just the bag mean. The paper should demonstrate that the optimized synthetic patches are actually diverse and class-discriminative, for example by reporting pairwise distances among synthetic patch embeddings or by comparing against a baseline that transmits random patches matched only in mean. Without such evidence, the core claim that the synthetic slides are informative for MIL models is not established.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 2] The headline hyperparameters M=10 and B=100 are selected from the test-set ablation in Fig. 2 and then used to produce the results in Tables 1-3. This constitutes selection on the test set and makes the reported numbers optimistically biased. The authors should either choose hyperparameters on a held-out validation split or report the full grid of Fig. 2 with honest error bars and clearly state that the reported numbers come from the same grid that was used to select them.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.4] The claim that exchanging synthetic slides 'preserves patient privacy' or 'enhanc[es] privacy' is asserted without any privacy evaluation. There is no membership-inference attack, no model-inversion experiment, no discussion of information leakage through the feature-matching objective, and no differential privacy guarantee. Because the synthetic patches are optimized to match real slide feature means, they may retain sensitive information, so this claim needs concrete empirical or theoretical support before it can be accepted.
  4. [Section 3.3, Table 3] The heterogeneous-model experiment varies only the MIL head (CLAM, TransMIL, ABMIL) while all centres use the same frozen ImageNet ResNet50 feature extractor. The paper's stated flexibility for centres with different feature extractors is therefore untested. The distillation objective in Eq. (3) is defined in the feature space of a specific extractor, so if a centre uses a different feature extractor, the transferred synthetic slides may not be useful. Please either test cross-extractor transfer or soften the flexibility claim to apply only to MIL head heterogeneity.
  5. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.2] The description of the distillation loop is missing details needed for reproducibility. The text states that during each distillation iteration the method iterates through all classes and samples one real slide and one synthetic slide, and that there are 1000 distillation rounds, but it does not specify how many real slides are used per class per iteration, how synthetic patches are initialized and updated per round beyond the Adam learning rate, whether the sampled real slide changes across iterations, or how stain normalization is inserted into the differentiable pipeline. Please provide the full algorithm as pseudocode or pseudocode-like steps.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Tables 2 and 3 captions] The captions of Tables 2 and 3 refer to 'FedDFP', which does not appear in the method list; this appears to be a typo for 'personalised FL methods' or similar.
  2. [References [17] and [18]] References [17] and [18] are duplicate entries for the same paper (Jia et al., ECCV); they should be merged into a single reference.
  3. [Equation (3)] The summation indices in Eq. (3) run from i=0 to T and b=0 to B, which is off by one; they should be i=1 to T and b=1 to B (or 0 to T-1 and 0 to B-1).
  4. [Figure 3] The label 'w SN（ 90.1%)' uses a full-width parenthesis and a misplaced space; this should be formatted consistently with the rest of the paper.
  5. [Section 2.3] The text cites 'stain normalisation [22]' and then 'stain normalisation [10]' in the same paragraph; please clarify which stain normalization method is actually used in the pipeline.
  6. [Abstract] The statement 'The code is available at FedWSIDD' provides no URL or repository identifier; please include an actual link.
  7. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'we are the first to successfully extend this concept to WSI classification' is too strong given that reference [10] already applies dataset distillation to histopathology image classification; please rephrase to acknowledge prior work.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline FedWSIDD accuracies are the exact best cells of the same test-set ablation used to select M and B, so the reported numbers are partly fitted to the evaluation data; no equation-level circularity appears elsewhere.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 (Implementation Details) and Sec. 3.4 / Fig. 2 (synthetic-slide dimension ablation)]
    "we set M = 10 and B = 100 with a size of 64x64. ... For evaluation, we measured test-set accuracy for each centre and the globally averaged accuracy ... We present the performance of FedWSIDD on two datasets under different combinations of the number of synthetic slides per class (M) and the number of synthetic patches per slide (B) in Fig. 2."

    The Fig. 2 ablation grid reports the same test-set accuracy that later appears in the headline tables. The chosen configuration (M=10, B=100) is exactly the cell that achieves the highest averages on both datasets (CA16 90.1, CA17 81.2), and Tables 1-2 report the identical averages (90.1 +/- 0.2 and 81.2 +/- 1.2) as FedWSIDD's result. Thus the reported performance is the argmax of the evaluation grid used to select hyperparameters, not an independent out-of-sample evaluation of a pre-specified configuration. This makes the headline numbers statistically forced by the selection procedure and gives FedWSIDD a selection advantage over baselines that are not tuned on the same test grid.

full rationale

FedWSIDD is an empirical systems paper; its distillation objective Eq. (3) is explicit and the informativeness of the synthetic slides is tested against external baselines, so the central mechanism is not circular at the equation level. The identified circularity is the test-set hyperparameter selection: M and B are chosen from Fig. 2, which plots the same global test accuracy that Tables 1-2 then report as the headline result, so the final configuration is fitted to the evaluation data and the headline numbers are the best cells of that grid. Self-citations [10] and [14] are present but not load-bearing: the distillation loss and federated protocol are stated in the paper rather than imported as a black-box uniqueness or equivalence theorem. No other circular step is present; the main issue is evaluation validity rather than definitional circularity.

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

The method's central claim rests on an empirical pipeline. No physical or mathematical axioms are needed, but four domain assumptions carry the result: a shared feature space transfers across MIL models, first-moment matching preserves discriminative information, synthetic slides guarantee privacy, and stain normalization is differentiable in the optimization loop. The free parameters M and B are selected on the test set.

free parameters (4)
  • M (synthetic slides per class) = 10
    Selected in Fig. 2 using test global average accuracy on CA16 and CA17; all headline tables use M=10, so the reported gains are partly a result of test-based hyperparameter selection.
  • B (synthetic patches per synthetic slide) = 100
    Also selected from the Fig. 2 ablation; M=10, B=100 gives the highest average accuracy on both datasets.
  • Adam learning rate = 0.0003
    Set by hand for both synthetic patch and MIL training; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Distillation rounds and local MIL rounds = 1000 and 50
    Adopted from prior DD-FL works [14,25]; not tuned in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Shared ResNet50 feature space is MIL-agnostic and sufficient for cross-centre transfer
    The method assumes synthetic patches optimized in one pretrained feature space improve arbitrary local MIL classifiers; experiments vary MIL heads but not feature extractors (Sec. 2.1, Sec. 3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper First-moment feature matching in Eq. (3) is a sufficient dataset distillation objective
    No gradient matching, trajectory matching, or class-separation term is used; the paper assumes matching patch feature means preserves class-discriminative information (Sec. 2.3).
  • domain assumption Synthetic slides preserve patient privacy
    Asserted in the abstract and Sec. 3.4, but no privacy attack, membership-inference test, or reconstruction analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Stain normalization can be integrated into gradient-based synthetic patch optimization
    The Macenko method involves SVD and is not obviously differentiable as typically implemented; the paper does not specify how gradients flow through the normalization step (Sec. 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedWSIDD: Federated Whole Slide Image Classification via Dataset Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJYIAEVT

@misc{pith2026250615365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedWSIDD: Federated Whole Slide Image Classification via Dataset Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJYIAEVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15365}
}
read the original abstract

Federated learning (FL) has emerged as a promising approach for collaborative medical image analysis, enabling multiple institutions to build robust predictive models while preserving sensitive patient data. In the context of Whole Slide Image (WSI) classification, FL faces significant challenges, including heterogeneous computational resources across participating medical institutes and privacy concerns. To address these challenges, we propose FedWSIDD, a novel FL paradigm that leverages dataset distillation (DD) to learn and transmit synthetic slides. On the server side, FedWSIDD aggregates synthetic slides from participating centres and distributes them across all centres. On the client side, we introduce a novel DD algorithm tailored to histopathology datasets which incorporates stain normalisation into the distillation process to generate a compact set of highly informative synthetic slides. These synthetic slides, rather than model parameters, are transmitted to the server. After communication, the received synthetic slides are combined with original slides for local tasks. Extensive experiments on multiple WSI classification tasks, including CAMELYON16 and CAMELYON17, demonstrate that FedWSIDD offers flexibility for heterogeneous local models, enhances local WSI classification performance, and preserves patient privacy. This makes it a highly effective solution for complex WSI classification tasks. The code is available at FedWSIDD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FedWSIDD pipeline. Each client first generates a set of synthetic slides which are then transmitted to the server. The server gathers synthetic slides from all partici￾pating clients and distributes the aggregated synthetic slides to them. Upon receiving the synthetic slides, clients merge them with their original real slides for local training. – Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of FedWSIDD. Com￾… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Global averaged accuracy (%) across centres in CAMELYON16 (CA16) and CAMELYON17 (CA17) with different M and B. w/o SN (88.9%) w SN （90.1%) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison with and without using stain normalisation during dataset distillation. Effectiveness of stain normalisation We compare the global average accu￾racy across centres on CAMELYON16 with and without stain normalisation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. The Evolution of Dataset Distillation: Toward Scalable and Generalizable Solutions

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A 2023-2025 survey of dataset distillation that organizes matching, generative, decoupling, and selective methods and tabulates ImageNet-scale accuracy comparisons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09709 (2024) 10 Jin et al

    Cong, C., Xuan, S., Liu, S., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, S., Song, Y.: Dataset distillation for histopathology image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09709 (2024) 10 Jin et al

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263 (2021)

    Acar, D.A.E., Zhao, Y., Navarro, R.M., Mattina, M., Whatmough, P.N., Saligrama, V.: Federated learning based on dynamic regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.04263 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging38(2), 550–560 (2019)

    Bandi, P., Geessink, O., Manson, Q., Van Dijk, M., Balkenhol, M., Hermsen, M., Bejnordi, B.E., Lee, B., Paeng, K., Zhong, A., et al.: From detection of individual metastases to classification of lymph node status at the patient level: the CAME- LYON17 challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging38(2), 550–560 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    JAMA318(22), 2199–2210 (2017)

    Bejnordi, B.E., Veta, M., Van Diest, P.J., Van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., Litjens, G., Van Der Laak, J.A., Hermsen, M., Manson, Q.F., Balkenhol, M., et al.: Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA318(22), 2199–2210 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Nature medicine25(8), 1301–1309 (2019)

    Campanella, G., Hanna, M.G., Geneslaw, L., Miraflor, A., Werneck Krauss Silva, V., Busam, K.J., Brogi, E., Reuter, V.E., Klimstra, D.S., Fuchs, T.J.: Clinical- grade computational pathology using weakly supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nature medicine25(8), 1301–1309 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Cazenavette, G., Wang, T., Torralba, A., Efros, A.A., Zhu, J.Y.: Dataset distilla- tion by matching training trajectories. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4750–4759 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    In: 2021 17th International Conference on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN)

    Chan, Y.H., Ngai, E.C.: Fedhe: Heterogeneous models and communication-efficient federated learning. In: 2021 17th International Conference on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN). pp. 207–214. IEEE (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chen, R.J., Chen, C., Li, Y., Chen, T.Y., Trister, A.D., Krishnan, R.G., Mahmood, F.: Scaling vision transformers to gigapixel images via hierarchical self-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 16144–16155 (2022)

    2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

    Cong, C., Liu, S., Di Ieva, A., Pagnucco, M., Berkovsky, S., Song, Y.: Texture enhanced generative adversarial network for stain normalisation in histopathol- ogy images. In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). pp. 1949–1952. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Medical Image Analysis82, 102580 (2022)

    Cong, C., Liu, S., Di Ieva, A., Pagnucco, M., Berkovsky, S., Song, Y.: Colour adaptive generative networks for stain normalisation of histopathology images. Medical Image Analysis82, 102580 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.J., Li, K., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 248–255. Ieee (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    In: CVPR

    He, K., Zhang, X., et al.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: CVPR. pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Hu, M., Cao, Y., Li, A., Li, Z., Liu, C., Li, T., Chen, M., Liu, Y.: Fedmut: Gen- eralized federated learning via stochastic mutation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 38, pp. 12528–12537 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11525 (2024)

    Huang, C.Y., Srinivas, K., Zhang, X., Li, X.: Overcoming data and model hetero- geneities in decentralized federated learning via synthetic anchors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11525 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence137, 109233 (2024)

    Huang, L., Shao, L., Bao, M., Guo, C., Shao, Z., Huang, X., Wang, M., Jiang, X., Hu, S.: Federated learning with comparative learning-based dynamic parame- ter updating on glioma whole slide images. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence137, 109233 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Ilse,M.,Tomczak,J.,Welling,M.:Attention-baseddeepmultipleinstancelearning. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 2127–2136. PMLR (2018)

    2018

  9. [18]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Jia, Y., Vahidian, S., Sun, J., Zhang, J., Kungurtsev, V., Gong, N.Z., Chen, Y.: Unlocking the potential of federated learning: The symphony of dataset distillation via deep generative latents. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 18–

  10. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, Q., He, B., Song, D.: Model-contrastive federated learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10713– 10722 (2021)

    2021

  11. [20]

    Medical image analysis76, 102298 (2022)

    Lu, M.Y., Chen, R.J., Kong, D., Lipkova, J., Singh, R., Williamson, D.F., Chen, T.Y., Mahmood, F.: Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images. Medical image analysis76, 102298 (2022)

    2022

  12. [21]

    Nature biomedical engineering5(6), 555–570 (2021)

    Lu, M.Y., Williamson, D.F., Chen, T.Y., Chen, R.J., Barbieri, M., Mahmood, F.: Data-efficient and weakly supervised computational pathology on whole-slide images. Nature biomedical engineering5(6), 555–570 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

    Macenko,M.,Niethammer,M.,Marron,J.S.,Borland,D.,Woosley,J.T.,Guan,X., Schmitt, C., Thomas, N.E.: A method for normalizing histology slides for quanti- tative analysis. In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). pp. 1107–1110 (2009)

    2009

  14. [23]

    In: Artificial intelligence and statistics

    McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., y Arcas, B.A.: Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In: Artificial intelligence and statistics. pp. 1273–1282. PMLR (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    Advances in neural information processing systems34, 2136–2147 (2021)

    Shao, Z., Bian, H., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Ji, X., et al.: Transmil: Trans- former based correlated multiple instance learning for whole slide image classifica- tion. Advances in neural information processing systems34, 2136–2147 (2021)

    2021

  16. [25]

    In: 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)

    Song, R., Liu, D., Chen, D.Z., Festag, A., Trinitis, C., Schulz, M., Knoll, A.: Feder- ated learning via decentralized dataset distillation in resource-constrained edge en- vironments. In: 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). pp. 1–10. IEEE (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Tan, Y., Long, G., Liu, L., Zhou, T., Lu, Q., Jiang, J., Zhang, C.: Fedproto: Federated prototype learning across heterogeneous clients. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 36, pp. 8432–8440 (2022) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11

    2022

  18. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07011 (2024)

    Tang, Z., Zhang, Y., Shi, S., Tian, X., Liu, T., Han, B., Chu, X.: Fedimpro: Measuring and improving client update in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07011 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10959 (2018)

    Wang, T., Zhu, J.Y., Torralba, A., Efros, A.A.: Dataset distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10959 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  20. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Xiong, Y., Wang, R., Cheng, M., Yu, F., Hsieh, C.J.: Feddm: Iterative distribution matching for communication-efficient federated learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 16323– 16332 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Lei, B., Mukherjee, S., Pan, X., Zhao, B., Ding, C., Li, Y., Xu, D.: Accelerating dataset distillation via model augmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11950–11959 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.