MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405775248 · doi:10.2196/63754

Ensuring General Data Protection Regulation Compliance and Security in a Clinical Data Warehouse From a University Hospital: Implementation Study

2024· article· en· W4405775248 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Riou, Mohamed El Azzouzi, Anne Hespel, Emeric Guillou, Gouenou Coatrieux, Marc Cuggia

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPreprintCompliance (psychology)Data warehouseComputer scienceMedicineData scienceWorld Wide WebDatabasePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has profoundly influenced health data management, with significant implications for clinical data warehouses (CDWs). In 2021, France pioneered a national framework for GDPR-compliant CDW implementation, established by its data protection authority (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés). This framework provides detailed guidelines for health care institutions, offering a unique opportunity to assess practical GDPR implementation in health data management. Objective: This study evaluates the real-world applicability of France's CDW framework through its implementation at a major university hospital. It identifies practical challenges for its implementation by health institutions and proposes adaptations relevant to regulatory authorities in order to facilitate research in secondary use data domains. Methods: A systematic assessment was conducted in May 2023 at the University Hospital of Rennes, which manages data for over 2 million patients through the eHOP CDW system. The evaluation examined 116 criteria across 13 categories using a dual-assessment approach validated by information security and data protection officers. Compliance was rated as met, unmet, or not applicable, with criteria classified as software-related (n=25) or institution-related (n=91). Results: Software-related criteria showed 60% (n=15) compliance, with 28% (n=7) noncompliant or partially compliant and 12% (n=3) not applicable. Institution-related criteria achieved 72% (n=28) compliance for security requirements. Key challenges included managing genetic data, implementing automated archiving, and controlling data exports. The findings revealed effective privacy protection measures but also highlighted areas requiring regulatory adjustments to better support research. Conclusions: This first empirical assessment of a national CDW compliance framework offers valuable insights for health care institutions implementing GDPR requirements. While the framework establishes robust privacy protections, certain provisions may overly constrain research activities. The study identifies opportunities for framework evolution, balancing data protection with research imperatives.

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)0.158
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1580.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.557
GPT teacher head0.600
Teacher spread0.043 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207