Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026
Brain Infarct Segmentation and Registration on MRI or CT for Lesion-symptom Mapping
Published on: September 25, 2019
Federated Learning for Renal Tumor Segmentation and Classification on Multi-Center MRI Dataset
Dat-Thanh Nguyen1,2, Maliha Imami3, Lin-Mei Zhao3
1Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Background:
Deep learning (DL) models for accurate renal tumor characterization may benefit from multi-center datasets for improved generalizability; however, data-sharing constraints necessitate privacy-preserving solutions like federated learning (FL).
Purpose:
To assess the performance and reliability of FL for renal tumor segmentation and classification in multi-institutional MRI datasets.
Study Type:
Retrospective multi-center study.
Population:
A total of 987 patients (403 female) from six hospitals were included for analysis. 73% (723/987) had malignant renal tumors, primarily clear cell carcinoma (n = 509). Patients were split into training (n = 785), validation (n = 104), and test (n = 99) sets, stratified across three simulated institutions.
Field Strength/Sequence:
MRI was performed at 1.5 T and 3 T using T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (CE-T1WI) sequences.
Assessment:
FL and non-FL approaches used nnU-Net for tumor segmentation and ResNet for its classification. FL-trained models across three simulated institutional clients with central weight aggregation, while the non-FL approach used centralized training on the full dataset.
Statistical Tests:
Segmentation was evaluated using Dice coefficients, and classification between malignant and benign lesions was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curves (AUCs). FL and non-FL performance was compared using the Wilcoxon test for segmentation Dice and Delong's test for AUC (p < 0.05).
Results:
No significant difference was observed between FL and non-FL models in segmentation (Dice: 0.43 vs. 0.45, p = 0.202) or classification (AUC: 0.69 vs. 0.64, p = 0.959) on the test set. For classification, no significant difference was observed between the models in accuracy (p = 0.912), sensitivity (p = 0.862), or specificity (p = 0.847) on the test set.
Data Conclusion:
FL demonstrated comparable performance to non-FL approaches in renal tumor segmentation and classification, supporting its potential as a privacy-preserving alternative for multi-institutional DL models.
Evidence Level:
4.
Technical Efficacy:
Stage 2.
