pyDeid: an improved, fast, flexible, and generalizable rule-based approach for deidentification of free-text medical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Deidentification of personally identifiable information in free-text clinical data is fundamental to making these data broadly available for research. However, there exist gaps in the deidentification landscape with regard to the functionality and flexibility of extant tools, as well as suboptimal tradeoffs between deidentification accuracy and speed. To address these gaps and tradeoffs, we develop a new Python-based deidentification software, pyDeid. Materials and Methods: pyDeid uses a combination of regular expression-based rules, fixed exclusion lists and inclusion lists to deidentify free-text data. Additional configurations of pyDeid include optional named entity recognition and custom name lists. We measure its deidentification performance and speed on 700 admission notes from a Canadian hospital, the publicly available n2c2 benchmark dataset of American discharge notes, as well as a synthetic dataset of artificial intelligence (AI) generated admission notes. We also compare its performance with the Physionet De-identification Software and the popular open-source Philter tool. Results: Different configurations of pyDeid outperformed other tools on various metrics, with a "best" accuracy value of 0.988, best precision of 0.889, best recall of 0.950, and best F1 score of 0.904. All configurations of pyDeid were significantly faster than Philter and Physionet De-identification Software, with the fastest deidentification speed of 0.48 s per note. Discussion and Conclusions: pyDeid allows the flexibility to prioritize between performance and speed, as well as precision and recall, while addressing some of the gaps in functionality left by other tools. pyDeid is also generalizable to domains outside of clinical data and can be further customized for specific contexts or for particular workflows.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".