Abstract
Federated learning allows hospitals to train a shared mortality model without pooling their records, but published comparisons of aggregation strategies rarely control the evaluation protocol. This study compared seven strategies (FedAvg, FedProx, SCAFFOLD, FedAdagrad, FedAdam, FedYogi and FedCluster) on two federations built with one pipeline: 12 care units of a hospital in MIMIC-IV and 49 hospitals in eICU-CRD. Each strategy was tuned and selected on validation data by the same rule, and every comparison was repeated across 10 seeds with Friedman and Holm-corrected tests. SCAFFOLD ranked first in both federations (AUC-ROC 0.886 and 0.819) and in 17 of 18 variants, but its margin over the runner-up never exceeded 0.008, and a control sharing its local optimizer attributed most of its margin over FedAvg to drift correction. On the multi-hospital federation, federated training matched centralized training. In the care-unit federation, three protocol choices changed discrimination by more than the choice of strategy did: discharge-coded predictors (+0.038 in AUC-ROC), client-level SMOTE (up to -0.074), and evaluating the last instead of the best validation round (up to -0.084). Platt scaling on validation data repaired the risks distorted by imbalance corrections without loss of discrimination. Studies should therefore fix the protocol before ranking algorithms.