Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Optimizing Federated Learning Configurations for MRI Prostate Segmentation and Cancer Detection: A Simulation Study

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Federated learning lets separate institutions train prostate MRI models that beat each local model, and tuning the configuration further improves cancer detection.

desk verdict Solid FL-over-local evidence for prostate MRI, but the permutation test needs clarification and the tuning gain is shakier than the headline suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22790 v2 pith:4BABP6D5 submitted 2025-07-30 eess.IV

Ashkan Moradi , Fadila Zerka , Joeran S. Bosma , Mohammed R. S. Sunoqrot , Bendik S. Abrahamsen , Derya Yakar , Jeroen Geerdink , Henkjan Huisman
show 2 more authors
Tone Frost Bathen Mattijs Elschot
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV
keywords federatedlearningprostatesegmentationcancerdetectionbiparametricMRInnU-NetPI-CAIscoreaggregationstrategysimulationstudy
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

Federated learning lets several institutions train a shared AI model without sharing patient images; this study asks whether that scheme works for prostate MRI, and whether the training configuration matters. Using public and in-house prostate MRI data split into separate clients, the authors trained deep-learning models for prostate gland segmentation and for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection under various federated settings. They report that the federated models beat the average of the locally trained models on independent test sets, lifting segmentation Dice from 0.73 to 0.87–0.88 and the csPCa detection score from 0.63 to 0.72–0.74. Tuning local epochs, federated rounds, and the server-side aggregation rule produced a further significant gain in detection, while segmentation was already near its best with the baseline configuration. The conclusion is that institutions can collaborate on prostate MRI AI without centralizing data, gaining most of the benefit of centralized training and sometimes a bit more.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the federated learning loop parameterized by three knobs: local epochs ($E$), the number of passes each client takes over its own data before sharing parameters; federated rounds ($R$), the number of times the server aggregates client parameters into a global model; and the server-side aggregation rule, among FedAvg, FedAdagrad, FedAdam, FedYogi, and FedMedian. Keeping the product $E \times R$ constant so that total computation is comparable, the authors searched over epoch-round combinations and aggregation rules, selecting the setting with the best score on a combined validation set. The chosen configurations were then evaluated with five-fold cross-validated models on independent test sets.

What would settle it

Run the same two-task protocol with, say, ten random initializations for each candidate configuration, keep the same independent test sets, and record the PI-CAI score for each run; if the tuned detection model does not beat the FL-baseline in most paired runs, the claimed tuning benefit is not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that federated learning is a viable substitute for centralized data pooling in prostate MRI, and that the specific federated configuration carries real performance weight. On independent test sets, the optimized federated models improved prostate gland segmentation from an average local-model Dice score of $0.73 \pm 0.06$ to $0.88 \pm 0.03$ ($P \le 0.01$) and improved csPCa detection from an average local-model PI-CAI score of $0.63 \pm 0.07$ to $0.74 \pm 0.06$ ($P \le 0.01$). The best detection configuration used $E=5$ local epochs, $R=200$ federated rounds, and FedAdagrad aggregation, and its tuned gain over the FL baseline ($0.72 \pm 0.06$ to $0.74 \pm 0.06$, $P \le 0.01$) was significant; the best segmentation configuration used $E=1$, $R=300$, and FedMedian, but its Dice gain over the FL baseline ($0.87$ to $0.88$) was not significant. These results are presented as the finding of a simulation study in which public and in-house datasets were partitioned into separate clients, with independent test sets used for final evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on treating a configuration selected by a single trained model per setting, scored on a combined validation set, as stable enough that the five-fold test scores of that configuration measure the real improvement; if that single-fold selection is noisy, the small tuned detection gain (0.72 to 0.74) may not replicate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Institutions with small or atypical local data gain the most from joining a federation; the weakest local segmentation model scored 0.47 Dice on the independent test set and jumped to 0.88 with the tuned federated model.
  • A hospital can obtain most of the benefit of centralized training without sending images to a central site, since the federated models matched or slightly exceeded the centralized baseline on the independent test sets.
  • Optimization effort in a federated deployment should be task-dependent: a simple FedAvg baseline sufficed for gland segmentation, while cancer detection required an adaptive aggregation strategy and a different epoch-round balance to gain.
  • Federated models trained this way generalize to data from institutions that did not contribute to training, as shown by the independent PROMISE12 and in-house test sets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the paper's selected configurations were chosen from a single trained model per setting, a natural next experiment is to run several random seeds per configuration; this would separate true tuning effects from selection noise.
  • Editorial inference: The pattern that FedMedian helped segmentation while FedAdagrad helped detection suggests that robust averaging preserves anatomical shape consistency, whereas adaptive server steps help when client prevalence and scanner properties differ; a direct comparison across data-heterogeneity levels would test this.
  • Editorial inference: If the results generalize beyond prostate MRI, the practical recipe of fixing the total compute budget, preferring few local epochs and many rounds, and picking the server optimizer by validation on a shared hold-out could become a default checklist for federated medical image analysis.
  • Editorial inference: Because the data were partitioned from existing datasets rather than collected through a live multi-site deployment, real-world federated learning with variable preprocessing and client compute may show different gains; running the same protocol prospectively across sites would be the natural next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 manuscript reports a simulation study of federated learning (FL) for MRI-based prostate segmentation and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection. Using the Flower framework and nnU-Net, the authors simulate FL across four clients (1294 patients) for segmentation and three clients (1500 patients per the methods; 1440 per the abstract) for detection. They compare local, centralized, FL-baseline, and FL-tuned configurations, optimizing local epochs, federated rounds, and aggregation strategy on a combined validation set, then reporting five-fold cross-validated test performance. The main claims are that FL-baseline outperforms local models (segmentation Dice 0.73 to 0.87; detection PI-CAI 0.63 to 0.72) with P≤0.01, and that further configuration tuning improves detection (PI-CAI 0.72 to 0.74) but not segmentation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful practical demonstration that FL can approach centralized performance in prostate MRI tasks while preserving data privacy, and that aggregation strategy and epoch-round choices matter. The public code and data provenance are strengths, as is the use of independent test sets (PROMISE12 and the PI-CAI in-house test set). However, the central FL-versus-local comparison is much more strongly supported than the tuning claim; the latter rests on a single-fold model selection and reported significance that is not convincingly justified. The paper is therefore a reasonable contribution to the applied FL literature, but the statistical and selection issues need to be addressed before the tuning conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis] The permutation test is not fully specified. The text says 'a permutation test on the performance metric over five differently trained models using 1000000 iterations.' With only five fold models, permuting model identity yields at most 32 permutations (16 for a two-sided test), so the minimum possible two-sided P-value is 1/16 ≈ 0.0625, not ≤0.01. If instead the permutation is over patient-level predictions, the procedure must be described and must account for the fact that only five fitted models contribute to the test. As written, the reported P≤0.01 values (e.g., abstract, Results sections, and Table 3/4 comparisons) are not reproducible from the stated method.
  2. [Results, Prostate Lesion Detection and Table 4] The claim that fine-tuning further improves detection (PI-CAI 0.72 to 0.74, P≤0.01) is not well supported by the reported evidence. The 95% confidence intervals for FL-baseline (0.66–0.79) and FL-tuned (0.69–0.80) overlap substantially, and the difference is only 0.02. More importantly, the configuration (E=5, R=200, FedAdagrad) was selected by evaluating a single trained model on a combined validation set, as acknowledged in the Methods and Discussion. This single-fold selection can inflate the apparent performance of the chosen configuration when later evaluated on five-fold test models. The manuscript does not provide any quantification of selection instability (e.g., repeated validation splits, standard errors of validation scores, or a sensitivity analysis around the chosen configuration). Without such evidence, the conclusion that 'optimizing its configuration further improved lesion detection performance' overstates what the data can justify.
  3. [Manuscript, Abstract and Methods] There is an inconsistency in the detection sample size: the abstract and key points state 1440 patients, while the Methods (client description: 350+800+350) and Results state 1500 bpMRI scans. This discrepancy must be corrected, as it affects the reported study population.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical errors, including 'Tabel 1' in the Results section and '0.88 ± 03' in the Results and Discussion (missing leading zero).
  2. [Materials and Methods, Patients and Data] The description of the local test sets says 'subsets of 10 patients were randomly selected from each client’s training set' for segmentation, but later the same sets are called 'test sets.' It would be clearer to specify whether these were separated before training and whether the random selection was stratified.
  3. [Results, Prostate Lesion Detection] Figure 4 reports AUC and AP improvements from FL-baseline to optimized FL models with P≤0.01; given the same permutation testing issue noted above, these P values should be re-derived or clarified.
  4. [Discussion] The discussion of adaptive aggregation strategies (FedAdam, FedYogi, FedAdagrad) is speculative and not grounded in a formal comparison of these methods beyond the chosen configuration; consider tempering the causal language about adaptive learning rates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparisons rest on held-out test evaluation and externally defined metrics.

full rationale

This is an empirical simulation study, not a derivation, and I find no load-bearing circular step. The central claims compare FL models against local and centralized baselines on independent test sets (PROMISE12 for segmentation; PI-CAI in-house test set for detection) that were not used for hyperparameter selection. The FL configuration was selected on combined validation data from a grid search, and the reported test performance was then obtained from five-fold cross-validated models; the optimal configuration is therefore not constructed from the test results. The PI-CAI score (AUC+AP)/2 is defined by the external PI-CAI challenge, and the detection post-processing follows published prior work; self-citation to ref 31 appears only as a pointer to additional optimization details and is not load-bearing for the main result. The paper transparently acknowledges that the optimization used a single trained model per configuration and that some validation sets were small, which is a legitimate statistical limitation and reduces confidence in the small detection tuning gain, but it is not circularity. The permutation-test structure for five fold models is also a statistical robustness concern, not an equivalence of inputs and outputs. Overall, the claimed improvements are empirical findings supported by held-out evaluation, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical, so the ledger contains no invented entities. The main free parameters are the FL hyperparameters selected by validation search. The axioms are domain assumptions about dataset independence, preprocessing uniformity, metric validity, and small-sample statistics. None is exotic, but each is load-bearing when generalizing from this simulation to real FL deployment.

free parameters (3)
  • local_epochs_E = 1 for segmentation, 5 for csPCa detection
    Selected by validation-set grid search under fixed E*R; the optimized configuration claim rests on this choice.
  • federated_rounds_R = 300 for segmentation, 200 for detection (baselines used 300 and 1000)
    Selected together with E on the combined validation set; central to the optimal-configuration result.
  • aggregation_strategy = FedMedian for segmentation, FedAdagrad for detection
    Chosen by comparing FedAvg, FedAdagrad, FedAdam, FedYogi, and FedMedian on the combined validation set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Client data partitions in the simulation emulate real-world inter-institutional data heterogeneity.
    Methods and Discussion treat the public/in-house dataset sources as representative clients; the generalizability conclusion depends on this.
  • domain assumption Uniform preprocessing across clients allows nnU-Net to select the same architecture, making server-side aggregation compatible.
    Discussion states uniform preprocessing eliminated compatibility challenges; real-world FL may violate this assumption.
  • domain assumption PROMISE12 and the 199-patient in-house test set are independent external benchmarks.
    PROMISE12 is external for segmentation; the csPCa internal test is described as hidden PI-CAI data collected separately from the training clients.
  • domain assumption The PI-CAI score, (AUC+AP)/2, is a valid composite endpoint for clinically significant prostate cancer detection.
    Used as the primary detection metric following PI-CAI guidelines; if the composite is not clinically meaningful, the tuning gain claim weakens.
  • standard math Permutation testing over five cross-validated models yields valid P-values.
    Statistical Analysis: permutation test with 1,000,000 iterations over five differently trained models; with only five models the attainable P-value granularity is coarse, yet P<=0.01 is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Federated Learning Configurations for MRI Prostate Segmentation and Cancer Detection: A Simulation Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BABP6D5

@misc{pith2026250722790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Federated Learning Configurations for MRI Prostate Segmentation and Cancer Detection: A Simulation Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BABP6D5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22790}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: To develop and optimize a federated learning (FL) framework across multiple clients for biparametric MRI prostate segmentation and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using Flower FL to train a nnU-Net-based architecture for MRI prostate segmentation and csPCa detection, using data collected from January 2010 to August 2021. Model development included training and optimizing local epochs, federated rounds, and aggregation strategies for FL-based prostate segmentation on T2-weighted MRIs (four clients, 1294 patients) and csPCa detection using biparametric MRIs (three clients, 1440 patients). Performance was evaluated on independent test sets using the Dice score for segmentation and the Prostate Imaging: Cancer Artificial Intelligence (PI-CAI) score, defined as the average of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and average precision, for csPCa detection. P-values for performance differences were calculated using permutation testing. Results: The FL configurations were independently optimized for both tasks, showing improved performance at 1 epoch 300 rounds using FedMedian for prostate segmentation and 5 epochs 200 rounds using FedAdagrad, for csPCa detection. Compared with the average performance of the clients, the optimized FL model significantly improved performance in prostate segmentation and csPCa detection on the independent test set. The optimized FL model showed higher lesion detection performance compared to the FL-baseline model, but no evidence of a difference was observed for prostate segmentation. Conclusions: FL enhanced the performance and generalizability of MRI prostate segmentation and csPCa detection compared with local models, and optimizing its configuration further improved lesion detection performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Ashkan Moradi et. al. Optimizing Federated Learning Configurations for MRI Prostate Segmentation and Cancer Detection: A Simulation Study Ashkan Moradi1, Fadila Zerka1, Joeran Sander Bosma2, Mohammed R. S. Sunoqrot1,6, Bendik S. Abrahamsen1, Derya Yakar3,4, Jeroen Geerdink5, Henkjan Huisman1,2, Tone Frost Bathen1,6, Mat...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Increased magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management—What are the outcomes? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2023, 29(6):893-902

    Hofmann B, Haug ES, Andersen ER, Kjelle E. Increased magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer management—What are the outcomes? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2023, 29(6):893-902. doi: 10.1111/jep.13791

    work page doi:10.1111/jep.13791 2023

  3. [3]

    EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer

    Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, Zattoni F. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Urology 2008, 53(1):68-80. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002 2008

  4. [4]

    In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    Yi L, Zhang J, Zhang R, Shi J, Wang G, Liu X: SU-Net: An Efficient Encoder-Decoder Model of Federated Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. edn.: Springer International Publishing; 2020: 761-773

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Using deep learning to safely exclude lesions with only ultrafast breast MRI to shorten acquisition and reading time

    Jing X, Wielema M, Cornelissen LJ, Van Gent M, Iwema WM, Zheng S, Sijens PE, Oudkerk M, Dorrius MD, Van Ooijen PMA. Using deep learning to safely exclude lesions with only ultrafast breast MRI to shorten acquisition and reading time. European Radiology 2022, 32(12):8706-8715. doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08863-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00330-022-08863-8 2022

  6. [7]

    Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection

    Pati S, Baid U, Edwards B, Sheller M, Wang SH, Reina GA, Foley P, Gruzdev A, Karkada D, Davatzikos C et al. Federated learning enables big data for rare cancer boundary detection. Nat Commun 2022, 13(1):7346. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33407-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33407-5 2022

  7. [8]

    FedMix: Mixed Supervised Federated Learning for Medical Image Segmentation

    Wicaksana J, Yan Z, Zhang D, Huang X, Wu H, Yang X, Cheng KT. FedMix: Mixed Supervised Federated Learning for Medical Image Segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2023, 42(7):1955-1968. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3233405

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [9]

    Federated semi-supervised learning for COVID region segmentation in chest CT using multi-national data from China, Italy, Japan

    Yang D, Xu ZY, Li WQ, Myronenko A, Roth HR, Harmon S, Xu S, Turkbey B, Turkbey E, Wang XS et al. Federated semi-supervised learning for COVID region segmentation in chest CT using multi-national data from China, Italy, Japan. Med Image Anal 2021,

    work page 2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [10]

    nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation

    Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SAA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH. nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat Methods 2021, 18(2):203-211. doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    Joint Imaging Platform for Federated Clinical Data Analytics

    Scherer J, Nolden M, Kleesiek J, Metzger J, Kades K, Schneider V, Bach M, Sedlaczek O, Bucher AM, Vogl TJ et al. Joint Imaging Platform for Federated Clinical Data Analytics. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2020, 4:1027-1038. doi: 10.1200/CCI.20.00045

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Towards Real-World Federated Learning in Medical Image Analysis Using Kaapana

    Kades K, Scherer J, Zenk M, Kempf M, Maier-Hein K. Towards Real-World Federated Learning in Medical Image Analysis Using Kaapana. Lect Notes Comput Sc 2022, 13573:130-140. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-18523-6_13

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    Federated Whole Prostate Segmentation in MRI with Personalized Neural Architectures

    Roth HR, Yang D, Li WQ, Myronenko A, Zhu WT, Xu ZY, Wang XS, Xu DG. Federated Whole Prostate Segmentation in MRI with Personalized Neural Architectures. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - Miccai 2021, Pt Iii 2021, 12903:357-366. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030...

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    Variation-Aware Federated Learning With Multi-Source Decentralized Medical Image Data

    Yan Z, Wicaksana J, Wang Z, Yang X, Cheng KT. Variation-Aware Federated Learning With Multi-Source Decentralized Medical Image Data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2021, 25(7):2615-2628. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.3040015

    2021

  6. [15]

    Federated learning improves site performance in multicenter deep learning without data sharing

    Sarma KV, Harmon S, Sanford T, Roth HR, Xu Z, Tetreault J, Xu D, Flores MG, Raman AG, Kulkarni R et al. Federated learning improves site performance in multicenter deep learning without data sharing. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021, 28(6):1259-1264. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa341 Radio...

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Prostate158-An expert-annotated 3T MRI dataset and algorithm for prostate cancer detection

    Adams LC, Makowski MR, Engel G, Rattunde M, Busch F, Asbach P, Niehues SM, Vinayahalingam S, van Ginneken B, Litjens G et al. Prostate158-An expert-annotated 3T MRI dataset and algorithm for prostate cancer detection. Comput Biol Med 2022,

    2022

  8. [17]

    Targeted Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using an Office Based Magnetic Resonance Ultrasound Fusion Device

    Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, MacAiran M, Lieu P, Huang JT, Dorey FJ, Marks LS. Targeted Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer Using an Office Based Magnetic Resonance Ultrasound Fusion Device. J Urology 2013, 189(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.095

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    Federated Learning with Research Prototypes: Application to Multi-Center MRI-based Detection of Prostate Cancer with Diverse Histopathology

    Rajagopal A, Redekop E, Kemisetti A, Kulkarni R, Raman S, Sarma K, Magudia K, Arnold CW, Larson PEZ. Federated Learning with Research Prototypes: Application to Multi-Center MRI-based Detection of Prostate Cancer with Diverse Histopathology. Acad Radiol 2023, 30(4):644-657. do...

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    Prostate MRI and ultrasound with pathology and coordinates of tracked biopsy (prostate-MRI-US-biopsy)

    Natarajan S, Priester A, Margolis D, Huang J, Marks L. Prostate MRI and ultrasound with pathology and coordinates of tracked biopsy (prostate-MRI-US-biopsy). The Cancer Imaging Archive 2020, 10:7937. doi: 10.7937/TCIA.2020.A61IOC1A

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images

    Armato SG, 3rd, Huisman H, Drukker K, Hadjiiski L, Kirby JS, Petrick N, Redmond G, Giger ML, Cha K, Mamonov A et al. PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2018, 5(4):0...

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Biopsy-Naive Men: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance and Biopsy Strategies

    Kruger-Stokke B, Bertilsson H, Langorgen S, Sjobakk TAE, Bathen TF, Selnaes KM. Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Biopsy-Naive Men: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance and Biopsy Strategies. Front Oncol 2021, 11:745657. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.745657

    2021

  13. [22]

    to segment the 3D Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Ashkan Moradi et. al. prostate volumes at a single center; however, in this study, the focus was on FL segmentation. These patients underwent examinations at St. Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Nor...

    2014

  14. [23]

    The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository

    Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K, Freymann J, Kirby J, Koppel P, Moore S, Phillips S, Maffitt D, Pringle M et al. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 2013, 26(6):1045-1057. doi: 10.1007/s10278-013-9622-7

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, short paper track: Apr 2023

    Saha A, Bosma J, Twilt J, van Ginneken B, Yakar D, Elschot M, Veltman J, Fütterer J, de Rooij M: Artificial intelligence and radiologists at prostate cancer detection in mri—the PI-CAI challenge. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning, short paper track: Apr 2023

    2023

  16. [26]

    A comparison of Generative Adversarial Networks for automated prostate cancer detection on T2-weighted MRI

    Patsanis A, Sunoqrot MR, Langørgen S, Wang H, Selnæs KM, Bertilsson H, Bathen TF, Elschot M. A comparison of Generative Adversarial Networks for automated prostate cancer detection on T2-weighted MRI. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 2023, 39:101234. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2023.101234

    2023

  17. [27]

    Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge

    Litjens G, Toth R, van de Ven W, Hoeks C, Kerkstra S, van Ginneken B, Vincent G, Guillard G, Birbeck N, Zhang J et al. Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for MRI: the PROMISE12 challenge. Med Image Anal 2014, 18(2):359-373. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2013.12.002 Radiolog...

    2014 doi

  18. [28]

    Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data

    McMahan HB, Moore E, Ramage D, Hampson S, Arcas BAY. Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data. Pr Mach Learn Res 2017, 54:1273-1282. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1602.05629

    2017 doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    In: Proc 9th Int Conf Learn Representations: 2020

    Reddi S, Charles Z, Zaheer M, Garrett Z, Rush K, Konečný J, Kumar S, McMahan HB: Adaptive federated optimization. In: Proc 9th Int Conf Learn Representations: 2020

    2020

  20. [30]

    Semisupervised Learning with Report-guided Pseudo Labels for Deep Learning-based Prostate Cancer Detection Using Biparametric MRI

    Bosma JS, Saha A, Hosseinzadeh M, Slootweg I, de Rooij M, Huisman H. Semisupervised Learning with Report-guided Pseudo Labels for Deep Learning-based Prostate Cancer Detection Using Biparametric MRI. Radiol Artif Intell 2023, 5(5):e230031. doi: 10.1148/ryai.230031

    2023 doi

  21. [31]

    Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study

    Saha A, Bosma JS, Twilt JJ, van Ginneken B, Bjartell A, Padhani AR, Bonekamp D, Villeirs G, Salomon G, Giannarini G et al. Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI-CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study. Lanc...

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning

    Kairouz P, McMahan HB, Avent B, Bellet A, Bennis M, Bhagoji AN, Bonawitz K, Charles Z, Cormode G, Cummings R et al. Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning. Found Trends Mach Le 2021, 14(1-2):1-210. doi: 10.1561/2200000083

    2021 doi

  23. [33]

    Review on security of federated learning and its application in healthcare

    Li H, Li CC, Wang J, Yang AM, Ma ZZ, Zhang ZN, Hua DB. Review on security of federated learning and its application in healthcare. Future Gener Comp Sy 2023, 144:271-290. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2023.02.021

    2023 doi

  24. [34]

    Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Rates

    Yin D, Chen YD, Ramchandran K, Bartlett P. Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Rates. International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol 80 2018, 80:5650-5659. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1803.01498

    2018 doi arXiv

  25. [35]

    Federated learning for prostate cancer detection in biparametric MRI: optimization of rounds, epochs, and aggregation strategy

    Moradi A, Zerka F, Bosma JS, Yakar D, Geerdink J, Huisman H, Bathen TF, Elschot M. Federated learning for prostate cancer detection in biparametric MRI: optimization of rounds, epochs, and aggregation strategy. Pro Biomed Opt Imag 2024, 12927:412-421. doi: 10.1117/12.2688568

    2024 doi

  26. [38]

    Federated Learning With Differential Privacy: Algorithms and Performance Analysis

    Wei K, Li J, Ding M, Ma C, Yang HH, Farokhi F, Jin S, Quek TQS, Poor HV. Federated Learning With Differential Privacy: Algorithms and Performance Analysis. Ieee T Inf Foren Sec 2020, 15:3454-3469. doi: 10.1109/Tifs.2020.2988575

    2020

  27. [39]

    Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey

    Guan H, Yap PT, Bozoki A, Liu M. Federated learning for medical image analysis: A survey. Pattern Recognit 2024, 151:110424. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2024.110424 Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Ashkan Moradi et. al. Tables: Table 1: The average Dice score of the 5-fold cross-...

    2024

  28. [70]

    doi: 10.1016/j.media.2021.101992

    2021

  29. [148]

    doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105817

    2022

  30. [2020]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2007.14390

    2007 doi arXiv

  31. [2021]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2104.10195

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.