Expected 10-anonymity of HyperLogLog sketches for federated queries of clinical data repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation The rapid growth in of electronic medical records provide immense potential to researchers, but are often silo-ed at separate hospitals. As a result, federated networks have arisen, which allow simultaneously querying medical databases at a group of connected institutions. The most basic such query is the aggregate count—e.g. How many patients have diabetes? However, depending on the protocol used to estimate that total, there is always a trade-off in the accuracy of the estimate against the risk of leaking confidential data. Prior work has shown that it is possible to empirically control that trade-off by using the HyperLogLog (HLL) probabilistic sketch. Results In this article, we prove complementary theoretical bounds on the k-anonymity privacy risk of using HLL sketches, as well as exhibit code to efficiently compute those bounds. Availability https://github.com/tzyRachel/K-anonymity-Expectation Contact ywyu@math.toronto.edu Supplementary information N/A
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 | 0.018 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".