Toward Production-Ready Federated Learning in Healthcare: Privacy, Orchestration, and Governance in MLOps

Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative model training across distributed healthcare institutions without centralising sensitive patient data. However, real-world healthcare federations are often characterised not only by non-IID data, but also by heterogeneous clinical objectives and partially overlapping feature spaces. Different hospitals may optimise distinct and potentially conflicting objectives, such as mortality risk prediction, readmission reduction, or length-of-stay estimation, while also retaining institution-specific clinical features that cannot be shared with other participants. Existing personalised FL methods mainly address statistical heterogeneity, whereas multi-objective FL approaches typically learn a shared global model without explicit client-level adaptation. To address these limitations, we propose \textbf{FedCARE}, a multi-objective personalised FL framework for smart healthcare services. FedCARE follows a two-stage training strategy. First, it learns a shared global backbone from common clinical features using Pareto-driven multi-objective federated optimisation. Second, each client independently fine-tunes the shared backbone using its private features and local clinical objectives, enabling institution-specific personalisation without additional communication overhead. We implement FedCARE in a cloud-based client-server federated deployment on the Melbourne Research Cloud and evaluate it on two real-world healthcare datasets, MIMIC-III and Diabetes 130-US Hospitals. Experimental results show that FedCARE consistently outperforms standard FL, multi-objective FL, and personalised FL baselines, achieving up to 12.5% AUROC improvement and 32.0% MAE reduction over FedAvg.

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.

Background: Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative training of clinical AI models without centralizing patient data, but adoption is limited by privacy concerns, heterogeneous institutional compliance, and resource disparities; standard differential privacy (DP) applies uniform noise to all clients, penalizing well-compliant or under-resourced institutions. Objective: We introduce a compliance-aware FL framework that adapts DP to institutional compliance, letting lower-compliance sites participate without uniformly penalizing others. Methods: A compliance scoring tool aligned with HIPAA, GDPR, NIST, ISO, and HL7/FHIR maps each client score to a per-step Gaussian noise scale for server-side DP-SGD on a small aggregator dataset. The formal $(ε,δ)$ bound applies to the aggregator dataset under a semi-honest aggregator; client-level DP needs secure aggregation (future work). We evaluate five FL strategies on PneumoniaMNIST and BreastMNIST (16 clients, 50 rounds, five seeds); the cumulative aggregator-dataset $ε$ is about 1434 (Breast) and 513 (Pneumonia) at $δ=10^{-5}$. Results: Including 12 lower-compliance clients (Experiment 1) versus a compliant-only baseline (Experiment 4) changed BreastMNIST accuracy by +4.5 (FedAvg), +6.8 (FedMedian), +5.2 (FedProx), +1.6 (FedYogi), and -4.1 (FedAdam) percentage points (pooled +2.8 pp; not significant at n=5; up to +17 pp per configuration); compliance-weighted allocation matched uniform server-side DP at equal mean noise (+0.1 pp), carrying no utility penalty, and first-round noise cost 1.3 pp (Breast) and 2.5 pp (Pneumonia, FedAvg). Conclusions: Compliance-weighted server-side DP lets lower-compliance institutions join FL without degrading performance, giving auditable per-site noise control at no utility cost; formal guarantees apply to the aggregator dataset, with client-level DP requiring secure aggregation.