A Globally Optimal k-Anonymity Method for the De-Identification of Health Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Explicit patient consent requirements in privacy laws can have a negative impact on health research, leading to selection bias and reduced recruitment. Often legislative requirements to obtain consent are waived if the information collected or disclosed is de-identified. OBJECTIVE: The authors developed and empirically evaluated a new globally optimal de-identification algorithm that satisfies the k-anonymity criterion and that is suitable for health datasets. DESIGN: Authors compared OLA (Optimal Lattice Anonymization) empirically to three existing k-anonymity algorithms, Datafly, Samarati, and Incognito, on six public, hospital, and registry datasets for different values of k and suppression limits. Measurement Three information loss metrics were used for the comparison: precision, discernability metric, and non-uniform entropy. Each algorithm's performance speed was also evaluated. RESULTS: The Datafly and Samarati algorithms had higher information loss than OLA and Incognito; OLA was consistently faster than Incognito in finding the globally optimal de-identification solution. CONCLUSIONS: For the de-identification of health datasets, OLA is an improvement on existing k-anonymity algorithms in terms of information loss and performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it