Background. Federated learning (FL) has gained wide popularity as a collaborative learning paradigm enabling collaborative AI in sensitive healthcare applications. Nevertheless, the practical implementation of FL presents technical and organizational challenges, as it generally requires complex communication infrastructures. In this context, consensus-based learning (CBL) may represent a promising collaborative learning alternative, thanks to the ability of combining local knowledge into a federated decision system, while potentially reducing deployment overhead. Methods. In this work we propose an extensive benchmark of the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a panel of FL and CBL methods in a wide range of collaborative medical data analysis scenarios. The benchmark includes 7 different medical datasets, encompassing 3 machine learning tasks, 8 different data modalities, and multi-centric settings involving 3 to 23 clients. Findings. Our results reveal that CBL is a cost-effective alternative to FL. When compared across the panel of medical dataset in the considered benchmark, CBL methods provide equivalent accuracy to the one achieved by FL.Nonetheless, CBL significantly reduces training time and communication cost (resp. 15 fold and 60 fold decrease) (p < 0.05). Interpretation. This study opens a novel perspective on the deployment of collaborative AI in real-world applications, whereas the adoption of cost-effective methods is instrumental to achieve sustainability and democratisation of AI by alleviating the need for extensive computational resources.

Medical imaging is spearheading the AI transformation of healthcare. Performance reporting is key to determine which methods should be translated into clinical practice. Frequently, broad conclusions are simply derived from mean performance values. In this paper, we argue that this common practice is often a misleading simplification as it ignores performance variability. Our contribution is threefold. (1) Analyzing all MICCAI segmentation papers (n = 221) published in 2023, we first observe that more than 50% of papers do not assess performance variability at all. Moreover, only one (0.5%) paper reported confidence intervals (CIs) for model performance. (2) To address the reporting bottleneck, we show that the unreported standard deviation (SD) in segmentation papers can be approximated by a second-order polynomial function of the mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Based on external validation data from 56 previous MICCAI challenges, we demonstrate that this approximation can accurately reconstruct the CI of a method using information provided in publications. (3) Finally, we reconstructed 95% CIs around the mean DSC of MICCAI 2023 segmentation papers. The median CI width was 0.03 which is three times larger than the median performance gap between the first and second ranked method. For more than 60% of papers, the mean performance of the second-ranked method was within the CI of the first-ranked method. We conclude that current publications typically do not provide sufficient evidence to support which models could potentially be translated into clinical practice.

Healthcare data is often split into medium/small-sized collections across multiple hospitals and access to it is encumbered by privacy regulations. This brings difficulties to use them for the development of machine learning and deep learning models, which are known to be data-hungry. One way to overcome this limitation is to use collaborative learning (CL) methods, which allow hospitals to work collaboratively to solve a task, without the need to explicitly share local data. In this paper, we address a prostate segmentation problem from MRI in a collaborative scenario by comparing two different approaches: federated learning (FL) and consensus-based methods (CBM). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work in which CBM, such as label fusion techniques, are used to solve a problem of collaborative learning. In this setting, CBM combine predictions from locally trained models to obtain a federated strong learner with ideally improved robustness and predictive variance properties. Our experiments show that, in the considered practical scenario, CBMs provide equal or better results than FL, while being highly cost-effective. Our results demonstrate that the consensus paradigm may represent a valid alternative to FL for typical training tasks in medical imaging.

Automatic segmentation of medical images is a key step for diagnostic and interventional tasks. However, achieving this requires large amounts of annotated volumes, which can be tedious and time-consuming task for expert annotators. In this paper, we introduce DeepEdit, a deep learning-based method for volumetric medical image annotation, that allows automatic and semi-automatic segmentation, and click-based refinement. DeepEdit combines the power of two methods: a non-interactive (i.e. automatic segmentation using nnU-Net, UNET or UNETR) and an interactive segmentation method (i.e. DeepGrow), into a single deep learning model. It allows easy integration of uncertainty-based ranking strategies (i.e. aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty computation) and active learning. We propose and implement a method for training DeepEdit by using standard training combined with user interaction simulation. Once trained, DeepEdit allows clinicians to quickly segment their datasets by using the algorithm in auto segmentation mode or by providing clicks via a user interface (i.e. 3D Slicer, OHIF). We show the value of DeepEdit through evaluation on the PROSTATEx dataset for prostate/prostatic lesions and the Multi-Atlas Labeling Beyond the Cranial Vault (BTCV) dataset for abdominal CT segmentation, using state-of-the-art network architectures as baseline for comparison. DeepEdit could reduce the time and effort annotating 3D medical images compared to DeepGrow alone. Source code is available at https://github.com/Project-MONAI/MONAILabel