Data Auditing and Quality Assurance in a Federated Learning Consortium; Getting the Best of Both Worlds from Cross-Institutional and In-House Data Quality Inspection
Hogenboom, J.; Perez, N.; Filori, Q.; Sans, A.; Lobo Gomes, A.; Dekker, A.; van der Graaf, W.; Husson, O.; Crochet, H.; Wee, L.; Gouthamchand, V.
Show abstract
Introduction: Rare and heterogeneous disease research increasingly relies on privacy-enhancing technologies such as federated learning (FL) to enable cross-institutional collaboration across fragmented datasets. However, data quality assurance in FL can be limited, as individual-level data may not be directly accessible. While schema-dependent inspection offers a partial solution, it requires standardised schemas or resource-intensive frameworks, hindering scalability and collaboration. To address these challenges, we implemented two complementary dashboards and evaluated their interplay. Methodology: We adapted a recognised data quality control framework for re-use of electronic health record (EHR) data using breast cancer records from Centre Leon Berard into two dashboards: (1) an in-house dashboard for intra-clinic quality assessment, and (2) a federated dashboard for inter-clinic quality assessment. Artificial inconsistencies were introduced into distributed datasets mirroring the in-house source to evaluate detection capabilities. Results: The in-house dashboard provided granularity and reliability, pinpointing individual-level inconsistencies, while the federated dashboard enabled cross-institutional pattern detection - trade-offs inherent to their designs. The federated system revealed ecosystem-wide trends inaccessible to single-institution tools, whereas the in-house dashboard provided local validation and thoroughness. Discussion: Our findings confirm a complementary relationship: FL dashboards provide scalable, collaborative oversight but may require additional quality checks, while in-house tools ensure thoroughness at the cost of scalability. A combined model seemingly offers the optimal balance, accommodating both institution-specific needs and collaborative research requirements in evolving, multi-institutional ecosystems.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding Data Differences across the ENACT Federated Research Network 95%
- Design and Implementation of an End-to-End AI-Driven Colonoscopy Recall Workflow at Scale 94%
- Transforming Estonian health data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model: lessons learned 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- FHIR-DHP: A Standardized Clinical Data Harmonisation Pipeline for scalable AI application deployment 93%
- Can we trust the prediction model? Demonstrating the importance of external validation by investigating the COVID-19 Vulnerability (C-19) Index across an international network of observational healthcare datasets 93%
- Is the quality of hospital EHR data sufficient to evidence its ICHOM outcomes performance in heart failure? A pilot evaluation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Increasing Trust in Real-World Evidence Through Evaluation of Observational Data Quality 94%
- Real World Performance of the 21st Century Cures Act Population Level Application Programming Interface 92%
- Large Language Models Facilitate the Generation of Electronic Health Record Phenotyping Algorithms 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 91%
- Development of a customised data management system for a COVID-19-adapted colorectal cancer pathway 90%
- Natural Language Word-Embeddings as a glimpse into healthcare at the End Of Life 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.