Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812603›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2022

Privacy-aware multi-institutional time-to-event studies.

Julian Späth, Julian Matschinske, Frederick K Kamanu, Sabina A Murphy, Olga Zolotareva, Mohammad Bakhtiari, Elliott M Antman, Joseph Loscalzo, Alissa Brauneck, Louisa Schmalhorst and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Private Continuous Survival Analysis with Distributed Multi-Site Data.Proceedings : ... IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE International Conference on Big Data · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Julian SpäthInstitute for Computational Systems Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4562-5816
Julian MatschinskeInstitute for Computational Systems Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Frederick K KamanuTIMI Study Group, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sabina A MurphyTIMI Study Group, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Olga ZolotarevaInstitute for Computational Systems Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Mohammad BakhtiariInstitute for Computational Systems Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Elliott M AntmanDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Joseph LoscalzoDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Alissa BrauneckFaculty of Legal Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Louisa SchmalhorstFaculty of Legal Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Gabriele BuchholtzFaculty of Legal Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan BaumbachInstitute for Computational Systems Biology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical time-to-event studies are dependent on large sample sizes, often not available at a single institution. However, this is countered by the fact that, particularly in the medical field, individual institutions are often legally unable to share their data, as medical data is subject to strong privacy protection due to its particular sensitivity. But the collection, and especially aggregation into centralized datasets, is also fraught with substantial legal risks and often outright unlawful. Existing solutions using federated learning have already demonstrated considerable potential as an alternative for central data collection. Unfortunately, current approaches are incomplete or not easily applicable in clinical studies owing to the complexity of federated infrastructures. This work presents privacy-aware and federated implementations of the most used time-to-event algorithms (survival curve, cumulative hazard rate, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model) in clinical trials, based on a hybrid approach of federated learning, additive secret sharing, and differential privacy. On several benchmark datasets, we show that all algorithms produce highly similar, or in some cases, even identical results compared to traditional centralized time-to-event algorithms. Furthermore, we were able to reproduce the results of a previous clinical time-to-event study in various federated scenarios. All algorithms are accessible through the intuitive web-app Partea (https://partea.zbh.uni-hamburg.de), offering a graphical user interface for clinicians and non-computational researchers without programming knowledge. Partea removes the high infrastructural hurdles derived from existing federated learning approaches and removes the complexity of execution. Therefore, it is an easy-to-use alternative to central data collection, reducing bureaucratic efforts but also the legal risks associated with the processing of personal data to a minimum.

Identifiers

PMID36812603
PMCPMC9931301

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.