ArticleJMIR AI2026
A Pragmatic Framework for Federated Learning Risk and Governance in Academic Medical Centers.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models, there is growing interest in adopting AI approaches within academic medical centers (AMCs). However, the vast amounts of data required for AI and the sensitive nature of medical information pose significant challenges to developing high-performing models at individual institutions. Furthermore, recent changes in government funding priorities may result in the decentralization of biomedical data repositories that risk creating significant barriers to effective data sharing and robust model development. This has generated significant interest in federated learning (FL), which enables collaborative model training without transferring data between institutions, thereby enhancing the protection of proprietary and sensitive information. While FL offers a crucial pathway to enable multi-institutional AI development while maintaining data privacy, it also exposes AMCs to novel governance, security, and operational risks that are not fully addressed by existing procedures. In response, this manuscript provides a perspective grounded in both leading international standards (NIST AI RMF [National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework], International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 42001) and in the real-world governance experience of AMC leadership. We present a risk differentiation framework, an FL risk matrix, and a set of essential governance artifacts-each mapped to key institutional challenges and reviewed for alignment with core standards but offered as pragmatic, illustrative guides rather than prescriptive checklists. Together, these tools represent a novel resource to support AMC security, privacy, and governance leaders with standards-informed, context-sensitive tools for addressing the evolving risks of FL in biomedical research and clinical environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.