MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891313201 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.836

Secure data analysis environments: can we agree on criteria for “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data?

2018· article· en· W2891313201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louisa Jorm, Kim McGrail, J. Charles Victor, Kerina Jones, David Ford, Tim Churches

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsCustodiansData governanceComputer scienceData qualityData sharingCloud computingData accessData integrityComputer securityAuthentication (law)Data warehouseData securityInformation governanceAccess controlData scienceDatabaseBusinessEncryptionService (business)EngineeringInformation systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overall objectives or goalMany health data linkage ecosystems across the world have designed and implemented secure data analysis environments as one of their controls to protect patient privacy and confidentiality. These have been shaped by local legislation and data governance policies, available IT infrastructure and resources, and the skills and imagination of their architects. However, at present their various features and functionalities have not been reviewed, synthesised or contrasted. Burton et al [1] have proposed 12 criteria for Data Safe Havens in health and healthcare, which they conceptualise broadly as encompassing data governance and ethics, quality and curation of data repositories, and data security. Under this definition, secure analysis environments, which may or may not be integrated with data repositories, are a component of a Data Safe Haven, addressing the criterion “Appropriate secure access to individually identifying data”. To guide those building and operating these environments, and data custodians and stewards who need to assess their fitness-for-purpose, it would be of great value to discuss and agree an aggregate term (e.g. “Secure Data Lab”) that describes them, and to develop a more detailed set of criteria for what entails “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data.
 The goal of this session is to describe and document the approaches that have been taken by flagship secure data analysis environments internationally, including their approaches to authentication, assigning permissions, managing the ingress and egress of files and auditing transactions, and their responses to emerging opportunities, including cloud computing and national and international data sharing. We will explore how the interplay of physical, technical and procedural controls have been combined to create existing models, and the extent to which these can balance each other and be applied with flexibility depending on perceived risk and regimes.
 Session structurePrior to the session, we will develop a draft set of criteria for “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data. The session will comprise presentations describing existing secure analysis environments against the draft criteria, followed by a facilitated discussion. The secure data analysis environments that will be presented include:
 
 UNSW Sydney E-Research Institutional Cloud Architecture (ERICA)
 PopData BC Secure Research Environment (SRE)
 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) Data and Analytic Virtual Environment (IDAVE)
 Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Gateway
 
 Intended output or outcomeWe will write up the outcomes of the session as a scientific paper that proposes an aggregate term for secure data analysis environments for linked health data and a set of criteria for what entails “Appropriate secure access” to linked health data.
 Presenters and Facilitators
 Professor Louisa Jorm, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Australia
 Dr Tim Churches, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia
 Professor Kim McGrail, Population Data BC, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
 J. Charles Victor, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada
 Dr Kerina Jones, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom
 Professor David Ford, Swansea University Medical School, Wales, United Kingdom
 1. Burton PR, Murtagh MJ, Boyd A, et al. Data Safe Havens in health research and healthcare. Bioinformatics 2015; 31(20): 3241–3248

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.707
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.034 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207