Algorithms to anonymize structured medical and healthcare data: A systematic review
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
Introduction: With many anonymization algorithms developed for structured medical health data (SMHD) in the last decade, our systematic review provides a comprehensive bird’s eye view of algorithms for SMHD anonymization. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook for Reviews of Interventions and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Eligible articles from the PubMed, ACM digital library, Medline, IEEE, Embase, Web of Science Collection, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertation, and Theses Global databases were identified through systematic searches. The following parameters were extracted from the eligible studies: author, year of publication, sample size, and relevant algorithms and/or software applied to anonymize SMHD, along with the summary of outcomes. Results: Among 1,804 initial hits, the present study considered 63 records including research articles, reviews, and books. Seventy five evaluated the anonymization of demographic data, 18 assessed diagnosis codes, and 3 assessed genomic data. One of the most common approaches was k-anonymity, which was utilized mainly for demographic data, often in combination with another algorithm; e.g., l-diversity. No approaches have yet been developed for protection against membership disclosure attacks on diagnosis codes. Conclusion: This study reviewed and categorized different anonymization approaches for MHD according to the anonymized data types (demographics, diagnosis codes, and genomic data). Further research is needed to develop more efficient algorithms for the anonymization of diagnosis codes and genomic data. The risk of reidentification can be minimized with adequate application of the addressed anonymization approaches. Systematic Review Registration : [ http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ], identifier [CRD42021228200].
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 | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.068 | 0.176 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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