Data Anonymization for Pervasive Health Care: Systematic Literature Mapping Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Data science offers an unparalleled opportunity to identify new insights into many aspects of human life with recent advances in health care. Using data science in digital health raises significant challenges regarding data privacy, transparency, and trustworthiness. Recent regulations enforce the need for a clear legal basis for collecting, processing, and sharing data, for example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (2016) and the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act (2018). For health care providers, legal use of the electronic health record (EHR) is permitted only in clinical care cases. Any other use of the data requires thoughtful considerations of the legal context and direct patient consent. Identifiable personal and sensitive information must be sufficiently anonymized. Raw data are commonly anonymized to be used for research purposes, with risk assessment for reidentification and utility. Although health care organizations have internal policies defined for information governance, there is a significant lack of practical tools and intuitive guidance about the use of data for research and modeling. Off-the-shelf data anonymization tools are developed frequently, but privacy-related functionalities are often incomparable with regard to use in different problem domains. In addition, tools to support measuring the risk of the anonymized data with regard to reidentification against the usefulness of the data exist, but there are question marks over their efficacy. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic literature mapping study, we aim to alleviate the aforementioned issues by reviewing the landscape of data anonymization for digital health care. METHODS: We used Google Scholar, Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, and PubMed to retrieve academic studies published in English up to June 2020. Noteworthy gray literature was also used to initialize the search. We focused on review questions covering 5 bottom-up aspects: basic anonymization operations, privacy models, reidentification risk and usability metrics, off-the-shelf anonymization tools, and the lawful basis for EHR data anonymization. RESULTS: We identified 239 eligible studies, of which 60 were chosen for general background information; 16 were selected for 7 basic anonymization operations; 104 covered 72 conventional and machine learning-based privacy models; four and 19 papers included seven and 15 metrics, respectively, for measuring the reidentification risk and degree of usability; and 36 explored 20 data anonymization software tools. In addition, we also evaluated the practical feasibility of performing anonymization on EHR data with reference to their usability in medical decision-making. Furthermore, we summarized the lawful basis for delivering guidance on practical EHR data anonymization. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic literature mapping study indicates that anonymization of EHR data is theoretically achievable; yet, it requires more research efforts in practical implementations to balance privacy preservation and usability to ensure more reliable health care applications.
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 | 0,045 | 0,145 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,072 | 0,047 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 ».