UK National Data Guardian for Health and Care’s Review of Data Security: Trust, better security and opt-outs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing health and social care data is essential to the delivery of high quality health care as well as disease surveillance, public health, and for conducting research. However, these societal benefits may be constrained by privacy and data protection principles. Hence, societies are striving to find a balance between the two competing public interests. Whilst the spread of IT advancements in recent decades has increased the demand for an increased privacy and data protection in many ways health is a special case. UK are adopting guidelines, codes of conduct and regulatory instruments aimed to implement privacy principles into practical settings and enhance public trust. Accordingly, in 2015, the UK National Data Guardian (NDG) requested to conduct a further review of data protection, referred to as Caldicott 3. The scope of this review is to strengthen data security standards and confidentiality. It also proposes a consent system based on an "opt-out" model rather than on "opt-in.Across Europe as well as internationally the privacy-health data sharing balance is not fixed. In Europe enactment of the new EU Data Protection Regulation in 2016 constitute a major breakthrough, which is likely to have a profound effect on European countries and beyond. In Australia and across North America different ways are being sought to balance out these twin requirements of a modern society - to preserve privacy alongside affording high quality health care for an ageing population. Whilst in the UK privacy legal framework remains complex and fragmented into different layers of legislation, which may negatively impact on both the rights to privacy and health the UK is at the forefront in the uptake of international and EU privacy and data protection principles. And, if the privacy regime were reorganised in a more comprehensive manner, it could be used as a sound implementation model for other countries.
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 | 0.062 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".