Longitudinal medical report generation is clinically important yet remains challenging due to strict privacy constraints and the evolving nature of disease progression. Although federated learning (FL) enables collaborative training without data sharing, existing FL methods largely overlook longitudinal dynamics by assuming stationary client distributions, making them unable to model temporal shifts across visits or patient-specific heterogeneity-ultimately leading to unstable optimization and suboptimal report generation. We introduce Federated Temporal Adaptation (FTA), a federated setting that explicitly accounts for the temporal evolution of client data. Building upon this setting, we propose FedTAR, a framework that integrates demographic-driven personalization with time-aware global aggregation. FedTAR generates lightweight LoRA adapters from demographic embeddings and performs temporal residual aggregation, where updates from different visits are weighted by a meta-learned temporal policy optimized via first-order MAML. Experiments on J-MID (1M exams) and MIMIC-CXR demonstrate consistent improvements in linguistic accuracy, temporal coherence, and cross-site generalization, establishing FedTAR as a robust and privacy-preserving paradigm for federated longitudinal modeling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of semantic structure evolution in medical reports. All data are derived from the J-MID dataset. (a) Ridgeline kernel-density plots of LDA-derived topic components for annual reports (2018–2024) from one institution. (b) T-SNE embedding of TF-IDF vectors for reports from five institutions.
Figure 2: Overview of the problem and our approach. (a) Client- and temporal-drift challenges in federated longitudinal medical report generation. (b) The proposed FedTAR framework.
BLEU-1
BLEU-2
BLEU-3
BLEU-4
ROUGE-L
CIDEr
FedAvg [ 24 ]
38.40
24.68
16.16
10.98
28.54
31.70
FedProx [ 21 ]
38.32
24.48
15.95
11.00
28.58
31.62
SCAFFOLD [ 18 ]
35.40
22.38
14.80
10.10
27.12
24.82
FedAdam [ 31 ]
38.26
24.54
16.05
10.93
28.61
30.62
FedYogi [ 31 ]
35.39
22.37
13.72
10.46
27.91
24.79
DRFA [ 8 ]
36.80
24.02
16.63
11.60
28.75
29.51
Table 1: Comparison of our proposed method (FedTAR) with standard FL baselines on the chest CT report generation task. Evaluation metrics include BLEU- n ( n =1–4), ROUGE-L, and CIDEr, which collectively reflect linguistic precision, recall, and content relevance. FedTAR achieves consistent improvements, demonstrating the effectiveness of demographics- and temporally-aware adaptation.
BLEU-1
BLEU-2
BLEU-3
BLEU-4
ROUGE-L
CIDEr
FedTAR w/o GMM
40.38
25.08
17.59
12.07
28.65
41.56
FedTAR w/o temporal
38.83
25.82
17.28
11.21
29.50
41.88
FedTAR
40.08
25.94
17.80
12.40
29.54
42.80
Table 2: Ablation study evaluating the contributions of the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM)-based demographics embedding and the temporal residual aggregation module. Removing either component leads to consistent performance degradation across all metrics, confirming their necessity for capturing patient-specific heterogeneity and longitudinal dynamics.
CE-P
CE-R
CE-F1
BLEU-1
BLEU-2
BLEU-3
BLEU-4
ROUGE-L
CIDEr
FedAvg [ 24 ]
68.58
22.63
28.43
29.16
19.49
14.36
11.00
35.77
37.54
FedProx [ 21 ]
69.83
24.59
30.26
27.16
17.80
12.85
9.70
34.11
37.38
SCAFFOLD [ 18 ]
44.58
22.6
21.47
28.00
17.23
14.21
9.86
38.05
99.11
FedAdam [ 31 ]
58.74
25.95
31.80
39.17
28.56
22.42
18.39
43.08
97.07
FedYogi [ 31 ]
52.02
23.36
29.90
35.55
22.57
18.94
13.84
37.03
94.11
DRFA [ 8 ]
47.67
26.66
30.30
36.81
26.94
21.30
17.64
42.71
108.10
Table 3: Quantitative evaluation on the MIMIC-CXR dataset. Higher values indicate better performance.
CE-P
CE-R
CE-F1
BLEU-1
BLEU-2
BLEU-3
BLEU-4
ROUGE-L
CIDEr
CT2RepLong
13.37
13.12
13.24
47.20
28.46
24.26
10.57
35.63
25.68
FedTAR (ours)
17.65
12.76
14.47
40.08
25.94
20.54
12.14
29.54
42.80
Table 4: Comparison with centralized generation models on the J-MID dataset. Higher values are better.
Statistic
CE-P
CE-R
CE-F1
BLEU-1
BLEU-2
BLEU-3
BLEU-4
CIDEr
ROUGE-L
95% CI
(-0.02,0.08)
(0.01,0.10)
(0.00,0.09)
(-0.00,0.02)
(0.01,0.03)
(0.01,0.03)
(0.01,0.03)
(0.17,0.57)
(0.01,0.03)
p -value
0.25
0.02
0.04
0.09
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Win-rate (%)
88.98
98.84
97.76
95.71
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Significant
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 5: Paired significance analysis between FedTAR and FedAdam on MIMIC-CXR. Significant results: 95% CI excludes 0 and p<0.05 .
Figure 3: Overall caption describing both subfigures.
Figure 9Figure 10
Figure 6: fig:generated report
Property
FedAvg
Online FL
FTA (Ours)
Data Dist.
Pk (Static)
Qk,τ (Streaming)
Pk,t (Evolving)
Temporal Structure
Ignored
Optimization Time
Physical Time
Sequential Modeling
×
×
✓
Objective
Expectation
Regret / Stream
Longitudinal Sum
Table 6: Comparison of Federated Learning Paradigms.