MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105289139 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h1139

Anonymising and sharing individual patient data

2015· article· en· W2105289139 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Rodgers, Bradley Malin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsData sharingObstacleKey (lock)Internet privacyPatient dataPatient privacyComputer scienceHealth dataInformation privacyComputer securityData scienceHealth careMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a strong movement to share individual patient data for secondary purposes, particularly for research. A major obstacle to broad data sharing has been the concern for patient privacy. One of the methods for protecting the privacy of patients in accordance with privacy laws and regulations is to anonymise the data before it is shared. This article describes the key concepts and principles for anonymising health data while ensuring it remains suitable for meaningful 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations228
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207