A proposed de-identification framework for a cohort of children presenting at a health facility in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Data sharing has enormous potential to accelerate and improve the accuracy of research, strengthen collaborations, and restore trust in the clinical research enterprise. Nevertheless, there remains reluctancy to openly share raw datasets, in part due to concerns regarding research participant confidentiality and privacy. Statistical data de-identification is an approach that can be used to preserve privacy and facilitate open data sharing. We have proposed a standardized framework for the de-identification of data generated from cohort studies in children in a low- and-middle income country. Variables were labeled as direct and quasi-identifiers based on conditions of replicability, distinguishability, and knowability with consensus from two independent evaluators. Direct identifiers were removed from the dataset, while a statistical risk-based de-identification approach using the k-anonymity model was applied to quasi-identifiers. Qualitative assessment of the level of privacy invasion associated with data set disclosure was used to determine an acceptable re-identification risk threshold, and corresponding k-anonymity requirement. A de-identification model using generalization, followed by suppression was applied using a logical stepwise approach to achieve k-anonymity. The utility of the de-identified data was demonstrated using a typical clinical regression example. The de-identified dataset was published on the Pediatric Sepsis Data CoLaboratory Dataverse which provides moderated data access. Researchers are faced with many challenges when providing access to clinical data. We provide a standardized de-identification framework that can be adapted and refined based on specific context and risks. This process will be combined with moderated access to foster coordination and collaboration in the clinical research community. AUTHOR SUMMARY Open Data is data that anyone can access, use, and share. Open Data has the potential to facilitate collaboration, enrich research, and advance the analytic capacity to inform decisions. Importantly, Open Data plays a role in fulfilling obligations to research participants and honoring the nature of medical research as a public good. Leaders in industry, academia, and regulatory agencies recognize the value in increased transparency and are focusing on how to openly share data while minimizing the safety risks to research participants. For example, making data open can pose a privacy risk to research participants who have shared personal health information. This risk can be mitigated using data de-identification, a process of removing personal information from a dataset so that an individual’s identity is no longer apparent or cannot be reasonably ascertained from the data. We introduce a simple, statistical risk-based framework for de-identification of clinical data that can be followed by any researcher. This framework will guide open data sharing while improving the protection of research participants.
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 | 0.082 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".