Search

Due to data privacy constraints, data sharing among multiple clinical centers is restricted, which impedes the development of high performance deep learning models from multicenter collaboration. Naive weight transfer methods share intermediate model weights without raw data and hence can bypass data privacy restrictions. However, performance drops are typically observed when the model is transferred from one center to the next because of the forgetting problem. Incremental transfer learning, which combines peer-to-peer federated learning and domain incremental learning, can overcome the data privacy issue and meanwhile preserve model performance by using continual learning techniques. In this work, a conventional domain/task incremental learning framework is adapted for incremental transfer learning. A survey on the efficacy of prevalent regularization-based continual learning methods for multicenter collaboration is performed. The influences of data heterogeneity, classifier head setting, network optimizer, model initialization, center order, and weight transfer type have been investigated thoroughly. Our framework is publicly accessible to the research community for further development.

This work aims to explore the impact of multicenter data heterogeneity on deep learning brain metastases (BM) autosegmentation performance, and assess the efficacy of an incremental transfer learning technique, namely learning without forgetting (LWF), to improve model generalizability without sharing raw data. A total of six BM datasets from University Hospital Erlangen (UKER), University Hospital Zurich (USZ), Stanford, UCSF, New York University (NYU), and BraTS Challenge 2023 were used. First, the performance of the DeepMedic network for BM autosegmentation was established for exclusive single-center training and mixed multicenter training, respectively. Subsequently privacy-preserving bilateral collaboration was evaluated, where a pretrained model is shared to another center for further training using transfer learning (TL) either with or without LWF. For single-center training, average F1 scores of BM detection range from 0.625 (NYU) to 0.876 (UKER) on respective single-center test data. Mixed multicenter training notably improves F1 scores at Stanford and NYU, with negligible improvement at other centers. When the UKER pretrained model is applied to USZ, LWF achieves a higher average F1 score (0.839) than naive TL (0.570) and single-center training (0.688) on combined UKER and USZ test data. Naive TL improves sensitivity and contouring accuracy, but compromises precision. Conversely, LWF demonstrates commendable sensitivity, precision and contouring accuracy. When applied to Stanford, similar performance was observed. Data heterogeneity (e.g., variations in metastases density, spatial distribution, and image spatial resolution across centers) results in varying performance in BM autosegmentation, posing challenges to model generalizability. LWF is a promising approach to peer-to-peer privacy-preserving model training. • A multicenter study of deep learning brain metastases autosegmentation is performed. • Data heterogeneity influences the generalizability of deep learning models for brain metastases autosegmentation. • Naïve transfer learning (TL) and learning without forgetting (LWF) can promote multicenter collaboration without sharing raw data. • TL demonstrates notable strengths in achieving high detection sensitivity and contouring accuracy, at the expense of precision. • LWF achieves a commendable equilibrium between sensitivity and precision, offering a more balanced approach to multicenter model development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]