Evidence Hub

Federated Learning for Renal Tumor Segmentation and Classification on Multi-Center MRI Dataset

Nguyen DT, Imami M, Zhao LM, Wu J, Borhani A, Mohseni A, Khunte M, Zhong Z et al.

Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025

987 participants

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 987 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free