MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097686141 · doi:10.1177/0846537120967345

Canadian Association of Radiologists White Paper on De-identification of Medical Imaging: Part 2, Practical Considerations

2020· article· en· W3097686141 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Parker, Jacob L. Jaremko, Mark Cicero, Marleine Azar, Khaled El-Emam, Bruce Gray, Casey Hurrell, Flavie Lavoie‐Cardinal, Benoit Desjardins, Andrea Lum, Lori Sheremeta, Emil Lee, Caroline Reinhold, An Tang, Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreBitCan (Canada)University of AlbertaFraser HealthUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdentification (biology)MandateBest practiceWhite paperBig dataHealth careMedical educationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of big data, radiomics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in radiology requires access to large data sets containing personal health information. Because machine learning projects often require collaboration between different sites or data transfer to a third party, precautions are required to safeguard patient privacy. Safety measures are required to prevent inadvertent access to and transfer of identifiable information. The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) is the national voice of radiology committed to promoting the highest standards in patient-centered imaging, lifelong learning, and research. The CAR has created an AI Ethical and Legal standing committee with the mandate to guide the medical imaging community in terms of best practices in data management, access to health care data, de-identification, and accountability practices. Part 2 of this article will inform CAR members on the practical aspects of medical imaging de-identification, strengths and limitations of de-identification approaches, list of de-identification software and tools available, and perspectives on future directions.

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)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0170.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207