De-identification of primary care electronic medical records free-text data in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMRs) represent a potentially rich source of health information for research but the free-text in EMRs often contains identifying information. While de-identification tools have been developed for free-text, none have been developed or tested for the full range of primary care EMR data METHODS: We used deid open source de-identification software and modified it for an Ontario context for use on primary care EMR data. We developed the modified program on a training set of 1000 free-text records from one group practice and then tested it on two validation sets from a random sample of 700 free-text EMR records from 17 different physicians from 7 different practices in 5 different cities and 500 free-text records from a group practice that was in a different city than the group practice that was used for the training set. We measured the sensitivity/recall, precision, specificity, accuracy and F-measure of the modified tool against manually tagged free-text records to remove patient and physician names, locations, addresses, medical record, health card and telephone numbers. RESULTS: We found that the modified training program performed with a sensitivity of 88.3%, specificity of 91.4%, precision of 91.3%, accuracy of 89.9% and F-measure of 0.90. The validations sets had sensitivities of 86.7% and 80.2%, specificities of 91.4% and 87.7%, precisions of 91.1% and 87.4%, accuracies of 89.0% and 83.8% and F-measures of 0.89 and 0.84 for the first and second validation sets respectively. CONCLUSION: The deid program can be modified to reasonably accurately de-identify free-text primary care EMR records while preserving clinical content.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".