MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1945159329 · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001027

Privacy-preserving heterogeneous health data sharing

2012· article· en· W1945159329 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsDifferential privacyComputer scienceData miningScalabilityData publishingInformation privacyDiscriminative modelInformation sensitivityRaw dataPrivate information retrievalPrivacy softwareProbabilistic logicData anonymizationMachine learningComputer securityArtificial intelligenceDatabasePublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Privacy-preserving data publishing addresses the problem of disclosing sensitive data when mining for useful information. Among existing privacy models, ε-differential privacy provides one of the strongest privacy guarantees and makes no assumptions about an adversary's background knowledge. All existing solutions that ensure ε-differential privacy handle the problem of disclosing relational and set-valued data in a privacy-preserving manner separately. In this paper, we propose an algorithm that considers both relational and set-valued data in differentially private disclosure of healthcare data. METHODS: The proposed approach makes a simple yet fundamental switch in differentially private algorithm design: instead of listing all possible records (ie, a contingency table) for noise addition, records are generalized before noise addition. The algorithm first generalizes the raw data in a probabilistic way, and then adds noise to guarantee ε-differential privacy. RESULTS: We showed that the disclosed data could be used effectively to build a decision tree induction classifier. Experimental results demonstrated that the proposed algorithm is scalable and performs better than existing solutions for classification analysis. LIMITATION: The resulting utility may degrade when the output domain size is very large, making it potentially inappropriate to generate synthetic data for large health databases. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike existing techniques, the proposed algorithm allows the disclosure of health data containing both relational and set-valued data in a differentially private manner, and can retain essential information for discriminative analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0610.116
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it