De-identification is not enough: a comparison between de-identified and synthetic clinical notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For sharing privacy-sensitive data, de-identification is commonly regarded as adequate for safeguarding privacy. Synthetic data is also being considered as a privacy-preserving alternative. Recent successes with numerical and tabular data generative models and the breakthroughs in large generative language models raise the question of whether synthetically generated clinical notes could be a viable alternative to real notes for research purposes. In this work, we demonstrated that (i) de-identification of real clinical notes does not protect records against a membership inference attack, (ii) proposed a novel approach to generate synthetic clinical notes using the current state-of-the-art large language models, (iii) evaluated the performance of the synthetically generated notes in a clinical domain task, and (iv) proposed a way to mount a membership inference attack where the target model is trained with synthetic data. We observed that when synthetically generated notes closely match the performance of real data, they also exhibit similar privacy concerns to the real data. Whether other approaches to synthetically generated clinical notes could offer better trade-offs and become a better alternative to sensitive real notes warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".