MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166648275 · doi:10.2196/medinform.4959

NHash: Randomized N-Gram Hashing for Distributed Generation of Validatable Unique Study Identifiers in Multicenter Research

2015· article· en· W2166648275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guo‐Qiang Zhang, Shiqiang Tao, Guangming Xing, Jeno Mozes, Bilal Zonjy, Samden D. Lhatoo, Licong Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsIdentifierComputer scienceHash functionUnique identifiern-gramCryptographyUniversal hashingTheoretical computer scienceHash tableData miningComputer securityComputer networkArtificial intelligenceDouble hashing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A unique study identifier serves as a key for linking research data about a study subject without revealing protected health information in the identifier. While sufficient for single-site and limited-scale studies, the use of common unique study identifiers has several drawbacks for large multicenter studies, where thousands of research participants may be recruited from multiple sites. An important property of study identifiers is error tolerance (or validatable), in that inadvertent editing mistakes during their transmission and use will most likely result in invalid study identifiers. OBJECTIVE: This paper introduces a novel method called "Randomized N-gram Hashing (NHash)," for generating unique study identifiers in a distributed and validatable fashion, in multicenter research. NHash has a unique set of properties: (1) it is a pseudonym serving the purpose of linking research data about a study participant for research purposes; (2) it can be generated automatically in a completely distributed fashion with virtually no risk for identifier collision; (3) it incorporates a set of cryptographic hash functions based on N-grams, with a combination of additional encryption techniques such as a shift cipher; (d) it is validatable (error tolerant) in the sense that inadvertent edit errors will mostly result in invalid identifiers. METHODS: NHash consists of 2 phases. First, an intermediate string using randomized N-gram hashing is generated. This string consists of a collection of N-gram hashes f1, f2, ..., fk. The input for each function fi has 3 components: a random number r, an integer n, and input data m. The result, fi(r, n, m), is an n-gram of m with a starting position s, which is computed as (r mod |m|), where |m| represents the length of m. The output for Step 1 is the concatenation of the sequence f1(r1, n1, m1), f2(r2, n2, m2), ..., fk(rk, nk, mk). In the second phase, the intermediate string generated in Phase 1 is encrypted using techniques such as shift cipher. The result of the encryption, concatenated with the random number r, is the final NHash study identifier. RESULTS: We performed experiments using a large synthesized dataset comparing NHash with random strings, and demonstrated neglegible probability for collision. We implemented NHash for the Center for SUDEP Research (CSR), a National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke-funded Center Without Walls for Collaborative Research in the Epilepsies. This multicenter collaboration involves 14 institutions across the United States and Europe, bringing together extensive and diverse expertise to understand sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patients (SUDEP). CONCLUSIONS: The CSR Data Repository has successfully used NHash to link deidentified multimodal clinical data collected in participating CSR institutions, meeting all desired objectives of NHash.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207