The machine giveth and the machine taketh away: a parrot attack on clinical text deidentified with hiding in plain sight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical corpora can be deidentified using a combination of machine-learned automated taggers and hiding in plain sight (HIPS) resynthesis. The latter replaces detected personally identifiable information (PII) with random surrogates, allowing leaked PII to blend in or "hide in plain sight." We evaluated the extent to which a malicious attacker could expose leaked PII in such a corpus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We modeled a scenario where an institution (the defender) externally shared an 800-note corpus of actual outpatient clinical encounter notes from a large, integrated health care delivery system in Washington State. These notes were deidentified by a machine-learned PII tagger and HIPS resynthesis. A malicious attacker obtained and performed a parrot attack intending to expose leaked PII in this corpus. Specifically, the attacker mimicked the defender's process by manually annotating all PII-like content in half of the released corpus, training a PII tagger on these data, and using the trained model to tag the remaining encounter notes. The attacker hypothesized that untagged identifiers would be leaked PII, discoverable by manual review. We evaluated the attacker's success using measures of leak-detection rate and accuracy. RESULTS: The attacker correctly hypothesized that 211 (68%) of 310 actual PII leaks in the corpus were leaks, and wrongly hypothesized that 191 resynthesized PII instances were also leaks. One-third of actual leaks remained undetected. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A malicious parrot attack to reveal leaked PII in clinical text deidentified by machine-learned HIPS resynthesis can attenuate but not eliminate the protective effect of HIPS deidentification.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".