A Welfare Test for Sharing Health Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning and artificial intelligence methods are being increasingly used in the analysis of patient level and other health data, resulting in new insights and significant societal benefits. However, researchers are often denied access to sensitive health data due to concerns on privacy and security breaches. A key reason for reluctance in data sharing by data custodians is the lack of a specific legislative or other methodological framework in balancing societal benefits against costs from potential privacy breaches. Consistent with traditional cost–benefit analysis and the use of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), this study proposes an economic test that would enable Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to assess the benefits versus risks of data sharing. Our test can also be used to assess whether REBs employ reasonable effort to protect individual privacy and avoid tort liability. Constructing an acceptable welfare test for health data sharing will also lead to a better understanding of the value of data.
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 | 0.051 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".