Balancing Inferential Integrity and Disclosure Risk Via Model Targeted Masking and Multiple Imputation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing expectation that data collected by government-funded studies should be openly available to ensure research reproducibility, which also increases concerns about data privacy. A strategy to protect individuals’ identity is to release multiply imputed (MI) synthetic datasets with masked sensitivity values. However, information loss or incorrectly specified imputation models can weaken or invalidate the inferences obtained from the MI-datasets. We propose a new masking framework with a data-augmentation (DA) component and a tuning mechanism that balances protecting identity disclosure against preserving data utility. Applying it to a restricted-use Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) dataset, we found that this DA-MI strategy achieved a 0% identity disclosure risk and preserved all inferential conclusions. It yielded 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that had overlaps of 98.5% (95.5%) on average with the CIs constructed using the full, unmasked CSRG dataset in a work-disability (interstitial lung disease) study. The CI-overlaps were lower for several other methods considered, ranging from 73.9% to 91.9% on average with the lowest value being 28.1%; such low CI-overlaps further led to some incorrect inferential conclusions. These findings indicate that the DA-MI masking framework facilitates sharing of useful research data while protecting participants’ identities. Supplementary materials for this article, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work, are available as an online supplement.
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 | 0.114 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".