Privacy-Preserving Medical Image Classification Through Secure Neural Inference and Communication-Efficient Computation

Authors

  • Theres Peukert Department of Computer Science, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.
  • Conan Cairn Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
  • Kaitlyn Roy Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Keywords:

secure neural inference; medical image classification; privacy-preserving machine learning; communication-efficient computation; federated learning; clinical governance; robustness; trustworthy infrastructure

Abstract

Medical image classification has become a central application of modern artificial intelligence, yet its clinical value depends on access to sensitive patient data that cannot be freely centralized or exposed. This paper examines privacy-preserving medical image classification as a socio-technical infrastructure problem rather than a narrow cryptographic or machine learning task. It analyzes secure neural inference, communication-efficient federated computation, and the institutional conditions required for trustworthy deployment. The discussion emphasizes structural trade-offs among privacy guarantees, model utility, latency, bandwidth, robustness, fairness, and long-term sustainability. Secure inference architectures can protect patient images during prediction, but their practical viability depends on activation costs, communication rounds, hardware acceleration, and protocol composition. Federated approaches reduce central data pooling but introduce issues of heterogeneity, straggler behavior, poisoning risk, and governance complexity. The paper argues that privacy-preserving medical imaging systems require layered defenses, careful workload partitioning, transparent audit trails, and policy frameworks that assign accountability across hospitals, cloud providers, model developers, and regulators. It also considers cross-domain lessons from finance, critical infrastructure, and public health surveillance. The conclusion is that no single mechanism suffices; instead, resilient medical imaging requires an architecture of complementary protections, measurable service levels, and governance that treats privacy as an operational property rather than a compliance formality. Such an approach can support equitable, robust, and sustainable clinical machine learning without collapsing under communication, trust, or regulatory constraints.

References

1. Shokri, R., Stronati, M., Song, C., & Shmatikov, V. (2017). Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 3–18). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.41

2. Fredrikson, M., Jha, S., & Ristenpart, T. (2015). Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1322–1333). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813677

3. Rieke, N., Hancox, J., Li, W., Milletari, F., Roth, H. R., Albarqouni, S., ... (2020). The future of digital health with federated learning. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3, 119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-00323-1

4. McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., & Arcas, B. A. (2017). Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 1273–1282). PMLR.

5. Kairouz, P., McMahan, H. B., Avent, B., Bellet, A., Bennis, M., Bhagoji, A. N., ... (2021). Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 14(1–2), 1–210. https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000083

6. Bonawitz, K., Ivanov, V., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H. B., Patel, S., ... (2017). Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1175–1191). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3133982

7. Gilad-Bachrach, R., Dowlin, N., Laine, K., Lauter, K., Naehrig, M., & Wernsing, J. (2016). CryptoNets: Applying neural networks to encrypted data with high throughput and accuracy. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 201–210). PMLR.

8. Mohassel, P., & Zhang, Y. (2017). SecureML: A system for scalable privacy-preserving machine learning. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 19–38). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.12

9. Liu, J., Juuti, M., Lu, Y., & Asokan, N. (2017). Oblivious neural network predictions via MiniONN transformations. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 619–631). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3134056

10. Juvekar, C., Vaikuntanathan, V., & Chandrakasan, A. (2018). Gazelle: A low latency framework for secure neural network inference. In Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 1651–1669). USENIX Association.

11. Mishra, P., Lehmkuhl, R., Srinivasan, A., Zheng, W., & Popa, R. A. (2020). Delphi: A cryptographic inference service for neural networks. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 2505–2522). USENIX Association.

12. Rathee, D., Rathee, M., Kumar, N., Chandran, N., Gupta, D., Rastogi, A., & Sharma, R. (2020). CrypTFlow2: Practical 2-party secure inference. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 325–342). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417274

13. Knott, B., Venkataraman, S., Hannun, A., Sengupta, S., Ibrahim, M., & van der Maaten, L. (2021). CrypTensor: Flexible framework for privacy-preserving deep learning. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11726

14. Ziller, A., Trask, A., Lopardo, A., Szymkow, B., Wagner, B., Bluemke, E., ... (2021). PySyft: A library for easy federated learning. In Federated Learning Systems (pp. 111–139). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70604-3_5

15. Kaissis, G. A., Makowski, M. R., Rückert, D., & Braren, R. F. (2020). Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(6), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-0186-1

16. Peng, Hongwu, et al. "Rrnet: Towards relu-reduced neural network for two-party computation based private inference." arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.02292 (2023).

17. Sheller, M. J., Edwards, B., Reina, G. A., Martin, J., Pati, S., Kotrotsou, A., ... (2020). Federated learning in medicine: Facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data. Scientific Reports, 10, 12598. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69250-1

18. Li, T., Sahu, A. K., Talwalkar, A., & Smith, V. (2020). Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 37(3), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2020.2975749

19. Papernot, N., Abadi, M., Erlingsson, U., Goodfellow, I., & Talwar, K. (2017). Semi-supervised knowledge transfer for deep learning from private training data. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

20. Dwork, C., & Roth, A. (2014). The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3–4), 211–407. https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000042

21. Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H. B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., & Zhang, L. (2016). Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 308–318). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978318

22. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7

23. Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018). Implementing machine learning in health care—Addressing ethical challenges. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(11), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1714229

24. Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., & Kohane, I. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(14), 1347–1358. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1814259

25. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

Downloads

Published

2026-09-28