MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888968755

Consent based privacy for eHealth systems

2018· dissertation· en· W2888968755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan Habibi

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthInternet privacyInformed consentInformation privacyData scienceComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceHealth careAlternative medicineLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to Personal Health Information (PHI) is a valuable part of the modern health care model. Timely access to relevant PHI assists care providers in making clinical decisions and ensure that patients receive the highest quality of care. PHI is highly sensitive and unauthorized disclosure of PHI has potential to lead to social, economic, or even physical harm to the patient. Traditional electronic health (eHealth) tools are designed for the needs of care providers and are insufficient for the needs of patients. Our research goal is to investigate the requirements of electronic health care systems which place patient health and privacy above all other concerns. Control of secure resources is a well established area of research in which many techniques such as cryptography, access control, authentication, and organizational policy can be combined to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of data. Access control is the dominant data owner facing privacy control. To better understand this domain we conducted a scoping literature review to rapidly map the key concepts underpinning patient facing access controls in eHealth systems. We present the analysis of that corpus as well as a set of identified requirements. Based on the identified requirements we developed Circle of Health based Access Control (CoHBAC), a patient centered access control model. We then performed a second scoping review to extend our research beyond just access controls, which are insufficient to provide reasonable privacy alone. The second review yielded a larger, more comprehensive, set of sixty five requirements for patient centered privacy systems. We refined CoHBAC into Privacy Centered Access Control (PCAC) to meet the needs of our second set of requirements. Using the conceptual model of accountability that emerged from the reviewed literature we present the identified requirements organized into the Patient Centered Privacy Framework. We applied our framework to the Canadian health care context to demonstrate its applicability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207