MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2891313201 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.836

Secure data analysis environments: can we agree on criteria for “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data?

2018· article· en· W2891313201 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Louisa Jorm, Kim McGrail, J. Charles Victor, Kerina Jones, David Ford, Tim Churches

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research Council
Mots-clésCustodiansData governanceComputer scienceData qualityData sharingCloud computingData accessData integrityComputer securityAuthentication (law)Data warehouseData securityInformation governanceAccess controlData scienceDatabaseBusinessEncryptionService (business)EngineeringInformation systemMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Overall objectives or goalMany health data linkage ecosystems across the world have designed and implemented secure data analysis environments as one of their controls to protect patient privacy and confidentiality. These have been shaped by local legislation and data governance policies, available IT infrastructure and resources, and the skills and imagination of their architects. However, at present their various features and functionalities have not been reviewed, synthesised or contrasted. Burton et al [1] have proposed 12 criteria for Data Safe Havens in health and healthcare, which they conceptualise broadly as encompassing data governance and ethics, quality and curation of data repositories, and data security. Under this definition, secure analysis environments, which may or may not be integrated with data repositories, are a component of a Data Safe Haven, addressing the criterion “Appropriate secure access to individually identifying data”. To guide those building and operating these environments, and data custodians and stewards who need to assess their fitness-for-purpose, it would be of great value to discuss and agree an aggregate term (e.g. “Secure Data Lab”) that describes them, and to develop a more detailed set of criteria for what entails “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data.
 The goal of this session is to describe and document the approaches that have been taken by flagship secure data analysis environments internationally, including their approaches to authentication, assigning permissions, managing the ingress and egress of files and auditing transactions, and their responses to emerging opportunities, including cloud computing and national and international data sharing. We will explore how the interplay of physical, technical and procedural controls have been combined to create existing models, and the extent to which these can balance each other and be applied with flexibility depending on perceived risk and regimes.
 Session structurePrior to the session, we will develop a draft set of criteria for “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data. The session will comprise presentations describing existing secure analysis environments against the draft criteria, followed by a facilitated discussion. The secure data analysis environments that will be presented include:
 
 UNSW Sydney E-Research Institutional Cloud Architecture (ERICA)
 PopData BC Secure Research Environment (SRE)
 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Data and Analytic Virtual Environment (IDAVE)
 Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Gateway
 
 Intended output or outcomeWe will write up the outcomes of the session as a scientific paper that proposes an aggregate term for secure data analysis environments for linked health data and a set of criteria for what entails “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data.
 Presenters and Facilitators
 Professor Louisa Jorm, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Australia
 Dr Tim Churches, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia
 Professor Kim McGrail, Population Data BC, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
 J. Charles Victor, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
 Dr Kerina Jones, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom
 Professor David Ford, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom
 1. Burton PR, Murtagh MJ, Boyd A, et al. Data Safe Havens in health research and healthcare. Bioinformatics 2015; 31(20): 3241–3248

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Science ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,798
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,003
Science ouverte0,0110,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,707
Tête enseignante GPT0,673
Écart entre enseignants0,034 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207