Differentially Private Medical Texts Generation Using Generative Neural Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advancements in data science have offered us affordable storage and efficient algorithms to query a large volume of data. Our health records are a significant part of this data, which is pivotal for healthcare providers and can be utilized in our well-being. The clinical note in electronic health records is one such category that collects a patient’s complete medical information during different timesteps of patient care available in the form of free-texts. Thus, these unstructured textual notes contain events from a patient’s admission to discharge, which can prove to be significant for future medical decisions. However, since these texts also contain sensitive information about the patient and the attending medical professionals, such notes cannot be shared publicly. This privacy issue has thwarted timely discoveries on this plethora of untapped information. Therefore, in this work, we intend to generate synthetic medical texts from a private or sanitized (de-identified) clinical text corpus and analyze their utility rigorously in different metrics and levels. Experimental results promote the applicability of our generated data as it achieves more than 80\% accuracy in different pragmatic classification problems and matches (or outperforms) the original text data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it