Medical data publishing based on average distribution and clustering
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
Abstract Most of the data publishing methods have not considered sensitivity protection, and hence the adversary can disclose privacy by sensitivity attack. Faced with this problem, this paper presents a medical data publishing method based on sensitivity determination. To protect the sensitivity, the sensitivity of disease information is determined by semantics. To seek the trade‐off between information utility and privacy security, the new method focusses on the protection of sensitive values with high sensitivity and assigns the highly sensitive disease information to groups as evenly as possible. The experiments are conducted on two real‐world datasets, of which the records include various attributes of patients. To measure sensitivity protection, the authors define a metric, which can evaluate the degree of sensitivity disclosure. Besides, additional information loss and discernability metrics are used to measure the availability of released tables. The experimental results indicate that the new method can provide better privacy than the traditional one while the information utility is guaranteed. Besides value protection, the proposed method can provide sensitivity protection and available releasing for medical 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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