MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391221652 · doi:10.7202/1108624ar

D-PATH (Data Privacy Assessment Tool For Health) for Biomedical Data Sharing

2024· article· en· W4391221652 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Palmira Granados Moreno, Hanshi Liu, Sebastian Ballesteros Ramirez, David Bujold, Ksenia Zaytseva, Guillaume Bourque, Yann Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueLex Electronica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill Genome CentreUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCompute CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsData sharingComputer sciencePath (computing)Health dataInternet privacyInformation privacyData scienceHealth careMedicineComputer networkPolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Data Privacy Assessment Tool for Health (D-PATH) is a proof-of-concept online tool designed to help users intending to share biomedical data identify applicable legal obligations and relevant best practices. D-PATH provides a series of simple questions to assess important aspects of the data sharing task, such as the user’s legal jurisdiction and the types of entities involved. Based on the combination of answers that the user provides, D-PATH will generate a list of privacy obligations and security-best practices, categorized into themes of 1) accountability, 2) lawfulness of storage, transfer, and protection, and 3) security and safeguards that will likely apply in the user’s scenario. Currently, the D-PATH focuses on Canadian and European privacy laws and various global best-practice policies, but there are plans to extend this in later iterations of the tool. D-PATH was developed specifically to inform users about their legal privacy obligations and best practices and was written to facilitate compliant and ethical data sharing. As a proof-of-concept, D-PATH demonstrates the potential value of a tool in simplifying and translating complex concepts into more accessible formats. Such a tool can be adapted and valuable in many different contexts, such as training core researchers in data sharing laws and practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.022

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLex ElectronicaSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207