Validating a novel deterministic privacy-preserving record linkage between administrative & clinical data: applications in stroke research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research data combined with administrative data provides a robust resource capable of answering unique research questions. However, in cases where personal health data are encrypted, due to ethics requirements or institutional restrictions, traditional methods of deterministic and probabilistic record linkages are not feasible. Instead, privacy-preserving record linkages must be used to protect patients' personal data during data linkage. Objectives: To determine the feasibility and validity of a deterministic privacy preserving data linkage protocol using homomorphically encrypted data. Methods: Feasibility was measured by the number of records that successfully matched via direct identifiers. Validity was measured by the number of records that matched with multiple indirect identifiers. The threshold for feasibility and validity were both set at 95%. The datasets shared a single, direct identifier (health card number) and multiple indirect identifiers (sex and date of birth). Direct identifiers were encrypted in both datasets and then transferred to a third-party server capable of linking the encrypted identifiers without decrypting individual records. Once linked, the study team used indirect identifiers to verify the accuracy of the linkage in the final dataset. Results: With a combination of manual and automated data transfer in a sample of 8,128 individuals, the privacy-preserving data linkage took 36 days to match to a population sample of over 3.2 million records. 99.9% of the records were successfully matched with direct identifiers, and 99.8% successfully matched with multiple indirect identifiers. We deemed the linkage both feasible and valid. Conclusions: As combining administrative and research data becomes increasingly common, it is imperative to understand options for linking data when direct linkage is not feasible. The current linkage process ensured the privacy and security of patient data and improved data quality. While the initial implementations required significant computational and human resources, increased automation keeps the requirements within feasible bounds.
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 | 0.080 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".