Achieving Privacy-Preserving Weighted Similarity Range Query over Outsourced eHealthcare Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similarity queries have been widely employed to offer more effective medical care to patients in eHealthcare. As a special query, similarity query with user-defined weights, which allows users (i.e., doctors in eHealthcare) to define the weight for the distance metric, has received particular interest recently. In order to make the weighted similarity query service more flexible and reliable, healthcare centers tend to outsource the healthcare data and the corresponding similarity query service to a powerful cloud. However, due to privacy concerns, healthcare centers usually demand to encrypt the data before outsourcing them to the cloud. Although some existing privacy-preserving similarity query schemes can be adapted to handle weighted similarity range queries, they may face issues in either the practicality or the accuracy of query results. Aiming at addressing these issues, in this paper, we design an efficient privacy-preserving weighted similarity range query (EPW-Sim) scheme, which is practical and can return accurate query results. Specifically, we first discover a lower bound for the distance metric, i.e., weighted Euclidean distance, and further leverage the lower bound as a filtration condition to design an efficient weighted similarity range query algorithm. Second, we apply a modified asymmetric-scalar-product encryption (MASPE) scheme to preserve the privacy of the designed algorithm and propose our EPW-Sim scheme. Finally, we analyze the security of our scheme and conduct experiments to validate its efficiency, and the results demonstrate that our scheme is privacy-preserving and efficient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".