Consent-based access control for secure and privacy-preserving health information exchange
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
Electronic health record exchanges are crucial functions of modern healthcare systems. These components are fundamental in providing quality care and enable for a larger spectrum of services. A framework which protects patient information during data exchanges is essential for healthcare systems. To achieve security and privacy-preservation for information exchange, we propose a consent-based access control (CBAC) mechanism for healthcare systems. A consent is an authorization initiated by a patient for an intended data requester via an agreement between them. After obtaining the consent from the patient, a healthcare organization can gain access to the data, which is encrypted by a healthcare provider. This is achieved by a cryptographic primitive: conditional proxy re-encryption. By doing so, patient medical data is protected against access of unauthorized parties, including public data center. Additionally, the proposed scheme achieves collusion resistance. Furthermore, mutual authentication and contextual privacy are attained. Performance evaluation demonstrates that the proposed CBAC scheme can achieve security and privacy preservation with high computational efficiency. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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