Toward an Interoperable and Centralized Consent Centric Access Control Model for Healthcare Resources: Model and Implementation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although patients have the legal right in Canada and many other countries to specify how, when and by whom their medical records can be accessed, the harsh reality is that in almost all cases using existing systems and solutions, patients are unable to ensure that their expressed consent directives are respected. Almost all health information systems deployed today lack the most basic ability to express and enforce consent at a data field level, and all are stretched when consent management must span disparate systems. \n \nThis is not an unrecognized problem in the consent management domain. Numerous consent model types have been proposed, along with a multitude of access control mechanisms. Unfortunately, most contemporary consent models used today are either paper-based, an online consent directive with a digital signature, a simple checkbox to either opt-in, opt-out, or employ simple browser cookies. The result is that most consent models can capture only the most basic of consent expressions. Despite there being many different approaches for expressing and managing consent, few models actually enable patients to express discrete consent directives at the resource or at the data attribute level. As a result, contemporary consent models are mainly used to meet the compliance obligations of healthcare organizations as opposed to empowering patients to manage their privacy and control access to their medical records. No architecture or system that we are aware of can adjudicate field-level consent directives in the multi-system, multi-jurisdiction, multi-provider, multi-patient environ¬ments that exist in healthcare today. The inability to effectively and efficiently capture and enforce patient consent directives leaves many data custodians vulnerable to inadvertent data release – mitigated only by the fact that many providers attempt to secure a carte-blanche consent directive from all patients to relieve themselves of the problem of needing to respect more restrictive consent directives. \n \nAdvances in healthcare IT systems are adding to, rather than reducing, the complexity of protecting patient privacy which exposes an important research question: How can we empower patients to have control over their health records and be able to dictate who has access to their records, where and when? This thesis addresses this question by proposing a consent-centric architecture called consent-centric attribute-based access control (C-ABAC). C-ABAC offers a new standard for authorization. It allows expression of consent at any abstraction level – from the record to the data field level – and also guarantees that patient consent directives can be enforced at the system level, ensuring that patient data is made available only to parties entitled to access it. \n \nThe C-ABAC model offers (1) a new standard for “authorization,” (2) a new profile and application of attribute-based access control, (3) support for fine-grained access control, (4) seamless interoperability, (5) automation of a complex process and (6) dynamic flexibility allowing for both rich consent expression and complex consent enforcement.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».