A secure distributed logistic regression protocol for the detection of rare adverse drug events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited capacity to assess the comparative risks of medications after they enter the market. For rare adverse events, the pooling of data from multiple sources is necessary to have the power and sufficient population heterogeneity to detect differences in safety and effectiveness in genetic, ethnic and clinically defined subpopulations. However, combining datasets from different data custodians or jurisdictions to perform an analysis on the pooled data creates significant privacy concerns that would need to be addressed. Existing protocols for addressing these concerns can result in reduced analysis accuracy and can allow sensitive information to leak. OBJECTIVE: To develop a secure distributed multi-party computation protocol for logistic regression that provides strong privacy guarantees. METHODS: We developed a secure distributed logistic regression protocol using a single analysis center with multiple sites providing data. A theoretical security analysis demonstrates that the protocol is robust to plausible collusion attacks and does not allow the parties to gain new information from the data that are exchanged among them. The computational performance and accuracy of the protocol were evaluated on simulated datasets. RESULTS: The computational performance scales linearly as the dataset sizes increase. The addition of sites results in an exponential growth in computation time. However, for up to five sites, the time is still short and would not affect practical applications. The model parameters are the same as the results on pooled raw data analyzed in SAS, demonstrating high model accuracy. CONCLUSION: The proposed protocol and prototype system would allow the development of logistic regression models in a secure manner without requiring the sharing of personal health information. This can alleviate one of the key barriers to the establishment of large-scale post-marketing surveillance programs. We extended the secure protocol to account for correlations among patients within sites through generalized estimating equations, and to accommodate other link functions by extending it to generalized linear models.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".