用加密与差分隐私保护医疗数据,实现多机构心血管风险预测。
Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning via Differential Privacy and Homomorphic Encryption for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Modeling

- 结合联邦学习、同态加密和差分隐私,保护医疗数据隐私。
- 同态加密联邦学习性能接近集中式模型,但神经网络计算开销大。
- 差分隐私成本低,但逻辑回归对噪声更敏感,准确率下降明显。
保护敏感健康数据的同时实现协作分析是医疗领域的核心挑战。传统机器学习需集中匿名患者数据,导致隐私风险集中于单一机构。隐私增强技术(PETs),如差分隐私(DP)和同态加密(HE),可缓解风险,但在常规数据共享场景中常带来模型效用下降、计算成本上升和部署复杂等权衡。联邦学习(FL)通过本地训练并仅共享模型更新,减少数据集中化,但仍存在参数或梯度泄露敏感信息的风险。将DP或HE集成至FL可增强隐私保障,但其在真实医疗环境中的性能对比与部署影响尚不明确。本研究基于瑞典全国性医疗数据,系统评估了在多机构环境下,使用逻辑回归(LR)和神经网络(NN)进行心血管疾病风险预测时,融合DP与HE的联邦学习表现,并与标准联邦学习及集中式机器学习(cML)对比,量化了隐私-效用权衡。结果表明:采用同态加密的联邦学习性能接近集中式模型,但神经网络实现中引入显著加密开销;而差分隐私方案计算成本较低,但逻辑回归对校准噪声更敏感,导致性能下降更明显。研究为碎片化医疗体系中部署隐私保护联邦学习提供了实用指导。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Protecting sensitive health data while enabling collaborative analysis is a central challenge in healthcare. Traditional machine learning (ML) requires institutions to pool anonymized patient records, centralizing analytical development and privacy risks at a single site. Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs), including Differential Privacy (DP) and Homomorphic Encryption (HE), can mitigate these risks. However, they are mainly studied in conventional data-sharing settings and often introduce trade-offs, including reduced model utility, higher computational cost, and increased implementation complexity. Federated Learning (FL) reduces data centralization by enabling institutions to train models locally and share only model updates. Nevertheless, FL does not eliminate privacy risks, as shared parameters or gradients may still reveal sensitive information. Integrating DP or HE into FL can strengthen privacy guarantees, yet their comparative performance and deployment implications in real-world healthcare settings remain unclear. We systematically evaluated DP and HE integration in FL under real-world conditions, comparing them with standard FL and centralized ML (cML) to quantify privacy-utility trade-offs in multi-institutional settings. Using nationwide Swedish healthcare data, we evaluated cardiovascular disease risk prediction using logistic regression (LR) and neural network (NN) learners. FL with HE achieved performance comparable to cML but introduced measurable cryptographic overhead, particularly in the NN implementation. FL with DP incurred lower computational cost; however, LR was more sensitive to calibrated noise than the NN, resulting in greater performance degradation. Our findings provide practical guidance for deploying privacy-preserving FL in fragmented healthcare systems.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。