Research on rare and heterogeneous diseases increasingly depends on multi‑institutional collaboration. To enable analysis across fragmented datasets while protecting privacy, teams are adopting federated learning (FL). FL permits aggregate model training without sharing individual‑level records, but this architecture constrains direct access to raw data and can limit conventional data quality assurance practices.
Schema‑dependent inspection provides a partial solution to these constraints but requires standardized schemas or resource‑intensive frameworks, which reduce scalability and slow collaboration. This study examines whether combining institution‑specific and cross‑institutional inspection tools can reconcile the trade‑offs between local thoroughness and consortium‑level oversight.
The authors adapted an established data quality control framework originally developed for reuse of electronic health record (EHR) data to produce two complementary dashboards applied to a breast cancer dataset from Centre Léon Bérard. The two implementations were:
Both dashboards reused the same underlying quality control framework to facilitate a fair comparison of detection capabilities and the practical trade‑offs inherent to each approach.
To evaluate detection sensitivity and the complementary value of each dashboard, the investigators introduced artificial inconsistencies into distributed datasets that mirrored the in‑house source. The controlled introduction of anomalies allowed direct assessment of each dashboard’s ability to detect irregularities at different levels (individual vs ecosystem) while preserving the federated privacy constraints.
The study also considered operational aspects such as the granularity of returned signals, the ability to perform local validation, and the extent to which federated outputs reveal consortium‑wide trends.
The in‑house dashboard delivered high granular visibility and reliable identification of individual‑level inconsistencies, supporting thorough local validation and detailed corrective action. Because it operates with full access to institutional records, the in‑house tool can confirm and trace anomalies to specific records and clinical events.
The federated dashboard, by contrast, surfaced cross‑institutional patterns and ecosystem‑level trends that are not visible to single‑institution tools. Within the federated setting, aggregated or schema‑level checks can reveal systematic issues affecting multiple sites, enabling consortium‑wide monitoring and prioritization of quality interventions.
The study reports the expected trade‑off: the federated system contributes scalability and collaborative oversight but can miss the depth of individual‑level issues that an in‑house review detects. Conversely, the in‑house tool ensures thoroughness and traceability but lacks the capacity to reveal distributed patterns across the consortium.
The findings support a complementary relationship between federated learning‑aware dashboards and institution‑specific quality tools. Each approach addresses distinct needs:
Federated (cross‑institutional) dashboards provide scalable monitoring, detect ecosystem‑level trends, and support collaborative research governance under privacy constraints.
In‑house dashboards permit exhaustive, record‑level validation and local corrective workflows, which are essential for data provenance and accurate downstream analyses.
The authors suggest that a combined model — integrating federated oversight with targeted in‑house validation — offers the best balance for multi‑institutional research. Such a hybrid approach can preserve the privacy advantages and scalability of FL while retaining the depth and reliability of local data quality assurance.
The study emphasizes practical considerations for implementing this combined strategy, including the need for shared quality frameworks, harmonized schemas where possible, and procedural workflows that allow federated alerts to trigger local investigations.
The analyzed datasets are not publicly available; requests for access should be directed to the contact named in the source. The investigators reported following applicable ethical and regulatory requirements: the analysis used a subset of breast cancer patients with explicit consent thresholds, complied with the French MR004 reference methodology for secondary healthcare data use, underwent institutional data protection review, received a GDPR certificate, and was registered in the institutional GDPR registry.
To reduce re‑identification risk, an internal privacy transformation (uniform date shifting) was applied to preserve internal temporal relationships while limiting re‑identification potential. All data processing procedures are documented in the institutional transparency notice. The article is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; it therefore should not be used to guide clinical practice without further validation.