An Efficient Method for Deidentifying Protected Health Information in Chinese Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the popularization of electronic health records in China, the utilization of digitalized data has great potential for the development of real-world medical research. However, the data usually contains a great deal of protected health information and the direct usage of this data may cause privacy issues. The task of deidentifying protected health information in electronic health records can be regarded as a named entity recognition problem. Existing rule-based, machine learning-based, or deep learning-based methods have been proposed to solve this problem. However, these methods still face the difficulties of insufficient Chinese electronic health record data and the complex features of the Chinese language. OBJECTIVE: This paper proposes a method to overcome the difficulties of overfitting and a lack of training data for deep neural networks to enable Chinese protected health information deidentification. METHODS: We propose a new model that merges TinyBERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers) as a text feature extraction module and the conditional random field method as a prediction module for deidentifying protected health information in Chinese medical electronic health records. In addition, a hybrid data augmentation method that integrates a sentence generation strategy and a mention-replacement strategy is proposed for overcoming insufficient Chinese electronic health records. RESULTS: We compare our method with 5 baseline methods that utilize different BERT models as their feature extraction modules. Experimental results on the Chinese electronic health records that we collected demonstrate that our method had better performance (microprecision: 98.7%, microrecall: 99.13%, and micro-F1 score: 98.91%) and higher efficiency (40% faster) than all the BERT-based baseline methods. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to baseline methods, the efficiency advantage of TinyBERT on our proposed augmented data set was kept while the performance improved for the task of Chinese protected health information deidentification.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".