Privacy-Centric Access Control for Distributed Heterogeneous Medical Information Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many jurisdictions, patients are being increasingly empowered to play a critical role in defining how their medical information can be collected, used and shared across various healthcare data custodians. This patient-centric focus on information custody and management, along with the highly distributed nature of medical information, introduces new access control challenges related to privacy and security of medical information. As a result, when exchanging medical information across systems under different administrative domains, traditional access control models are not effective to enforce patient privacy preferences. To address this challenge, we propose an access control scheme that is patient-centric and offers a consent-based access control solution usable across heterogeneous medical information systems. Our model utilizes a logic-based approach to make inferences about access control decisions, and uses ontology-based knowledge representation to ensure that privacy preferences are correctly understood and applied. All system-level access control decisions can be automated and independently verified for validity and correctness. Our proposed solution offers a flexible and robust model that is most suited for the demanding access control scenarios present in patient care.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".