Federated vs. centralized learning for medical images classification and segmentation

Deep learning (DL) has become an essential tool in medical imaging. However, privacy regulations often make it difficult to collect and share medical data, limiting the availability of large and diverse datasets needed to train robust models. Federated learning (FL) offers a solution by enabling collaborative model training across multiple institutions without compromising patient privacy. However, the impact of the number of clients and of unbalanced data distribution on model performance has received limited attention. This study investigates the performance of FL compared to centralized learning (CL) in the tasks of medical image classification and segmentation under different client setups. For the classification task, we used chest X-ray (CXR) images to classify them into one of four categories using ResNet18. For the segmentation task, we used cardiac computed tomography (CT) images to train a 3D U-Net model to segment the left ventricle (LV) and the myocardium (Myo). For both tasks, we evaluated the efficacy of FL with 2, 4 and 8 clients with and without data unbalance, and an additional 16 clients setup for segmentation. In classification, the trained model achieved an accuracy of 0.93 in the centralized approach, with similar performance in federated settings. Performance remained consistent across balanced and unbalanced data distributions, with sensitivity consistently around 0.94. For segmentation, the centralized model yielded a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.877 (Myo) and 0.926 (LV), and the FL approach models yielded a DSC of 0.867 (Myo) and 0.922 (LV); 0.867 (Myo) and 0.923 (LV); 0.863 (Myo) and 0.921 (LV) for 2, 4 and 8 clients respectively. Our results show that FL achieves competitive performance compared to CL in medical image classification and segmentation tasks. Moreover, the experiments involving unbalanced data did not reveal any significant decrease in performance. For the segmentation task, the federated approach achieved consistent results for both structures across different client setups, closely matching the performance of the centralized model. These results suggest that FL is a viable alternative to CL, especially in scenarios where privacy and decentralization are important.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3043130
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.84
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Federated vs. centralized learning for medical images classification and segmentation

Antoine Simon, Pascal Haigron, Adam Fragkiadakis, Irina Rakotoarisedy
1 citations
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
0.84
article

Federated vs. centralized learning for medical images classification and segmentation

Antoine Simon, Pascal Haigron, Adam Fragkiadakis, Irina Rakotoarisedy
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has become an essential tool in medical imaging. However, privacy regulations often make it difficult to collect and share medical data, limiting the availability of large and diverse datasets needed to train robust models. Federated learning (FL) offers a solution by enabling collaborative model training across multiple institutions without compromising patient privacy. However, the impact of the number of clients and of unbalanced data distribution on model performance has received limited attention. This study investigates the performance of FL compared to centralized learning (CL) in the tasks of medical image classification and segmentation under different client setups. For the classification task, we used chest X-ray (CXR) images to classify them into one of four categories using ResNet18. For the segmentation task, we used cardiac computed tomography (CT) images to train a 3D U-Net model to segment the left ventricle (LV) and the myocardium (Myo). For both tasks, we evaluated the efficacy of FL with 2, 4 and 8 clients with and without data unbalance, and an additional 16 clients setup for segmentation. In classification, the trained model achieved an accuracy of 0.93 in the centralized approach, with similar performance in federated settings. Performance remained consistent across balanced and unbalanced data distributions, with sensitivity consistently around 0.94. For segmentation, the centralized model yielded a Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) of 0.877 (Myo) and 0.926 (LV), and the FL approach models yielded a DSC of 0.867 (Myo) and 0.922 (LV); 0.867 (Myo) and 0.923 (LV); 0.863 (Myo) and 0.921 (LV) for 2, 4 and 8 clients respectively. Our results show that FL achieves competitive performance compared to CL in medical image classification and segmentation tasks. Moreover, the experiments involving unbalanced data did not reveal any significant decrease in performance. For the segmentation task, the federated approach achieved consistent results for both structures across different client setups, closely matching the performance of the centralized model. These results suggest that FL is a viable alternative to CL, especially in scenarios where privacy and decentralization are important.

Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l'Image (FR), Centre Eugène Marquis (FR), Université de Rennes (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
0.84
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.