Addressing data privacy in matched studies via virtual pooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data confidentiality and shared use of research data are two desirable but sometimes conflicting goals in research with multi-center studies and distributed data. While ideal for straightforward analysis, confidentiality restrictions forbid creation of a single dataset that includes covariate information of all participants. Current approaches such as aggregate data sharing, distributed regression, meta-analysis and score-based methods can have important limitations. METHODS: We propose a novel application of an existing epidemiologic tool, specimen pooling, to enable confidentiality-preserving analysis of data arising from a matched case-control, multi-center design. Instead of pooling specimens prior to assay, we apply the methodology to virtually pool (aggregate) covariates within nodes. Such virtual pooling retains most of the information used in an analysis with individual data and since individual participant data is not shared externally, within-node virtual pooling preserves data confidentiality. We show that aggregated covariate levels can be used in a conditional logistic regression model to estimate individual-level odds ratios of interest. RESULTS: The parameter estimates from the standard conditional logistic regression are compared to the estimates based on a conditional logistic regression model with aggregated data. The parameter estimates are shown to be similar to those without pooling and to have comparable standard errors and confidence interval coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual data pooling can be used to maintain confidentiality of data from multi-center study and can be particularly useful in research with large-scale distributed data.
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 | 0.191 | 0.386 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".