Question Solved

How to approach systematic literature review.manual or automated tools? (74)

Back to Forum
Active 230 pts 0 followers
Manipal Academy of Higher Education · Posted
IoT & Embedded Systems

Context

I want to start using federated learning for my research on privacy-preserving healthcare analytics. The datasets involve patient records from three hospitals and we cannot share data across sites.

What I am looking for:

  • Python frameworks that are actively maintained and used in research
  • Any frameworks with good support for heterogeneous data distributions (non-IID)
  • Something that has a reasonably gentle learning curve for a researcher (not a systems engineer)

I have looked at PySyft and Flower. Any experience with either, or other alternatives I should consider?

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

4 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Varsha Pillai Growing 60 pts · Accepted answer

For Zotero vs BibTeX management, I moved to Zotero + Better BibTeX 3 years ago and have not looked back.

My workflow:

  1. Zotero browser connector captures papers instantly from ArXiv, Google Scholar, ACM DL, IEEE Xplore
  2. Better BibTeX generates a clean .bib file that auto-updates whenever I add a paper
  3. Overleaf directly pulls from the .bib file via Dropbox sync

One tip: create a Zotero collection per paper/project. When you export the .bib, export only that collection to keep it clean.

0
Replying to Varsha Pillai
Prakash Iyer Distinguished 640 pts · Accepted answer

I am in a very similar situation. Would you be willing to share the outline of your PMRF proposal? Not the content.just the section headings and approximate word allocation.

0
Replying to Varsha Pillai
Rajesh Kumar · Accepted answer

This is very reassuring. I was worried the null result would kill the paper but your framing around transparency and effect sizes makes a lot of sense.

0
Vikram Bhatia Active 420 pts · Accepted answer

FDR (Benjamini-Hochberg) is widely accepted and preferable to Bonferroni when you have many tests and limited power. The key is to be explicit about which correction you used and why.

On replication: No independent cohort is a genuine limitation but not a dealbreaker for rare disease research, where cohort availability is a known constraint. Many high-quality papers acknowledge this and still get published in good journals. Frame it as future work.

Power analysis: Yes, report it. Showing you are aware of the limitation is better than not mentioning it.