Enhancing privacy protection of physical examination data through synthetic algorithms based on differential privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health physical examinations play a crucial role in early detection of cancer and chronic disease. However, privacy concerns limit the utilization of this kind of data for health interventions and research. Synthetic data methods based on differential privacy are increasingly used to create complete datasets that protect privacy while enabling data analysis and result interpretation. Hence, the use of synthetic algorithms based on differential privacy for privacy protection of physical examination data is a promising research direction. METHODS: Three synthetic algorithms, PrivBayes, PeGS, and DP-Gibbs were used to generate complete synthetic datasets that adhere to differential privacy standards using physical examination data composed of categorical data, which compared with the existing algorithm Private-PGM. RESULTS: Compared with the existing algorithm, DP-Gibbs can provide privacy preserving capacity of 4.686 (ε = 0.5), while the existing algorithm only with 2.012. In addition, DP-Gibbs provides 0.620 of precision, 0.539 of F1-score, 0.342 of Kappa Coefficient, and 0.765 of AUC-score. The corresponding statistical results of existing algorithm are 0.520, 0.321, 0.188 and 0.695. CONCLUSIONS: The main contributions of this study are the exploration of combination models incorporating different noise forms and Bayesian synthetic algorithms, alongside a comparative analysis against existing algorithms. This study explored the balance between privacy protection and data utility under different levels of privacy protection, and DP-Gibbs offers more stable technical support for de-identifying physical examination data prior to sharing and analysis, which realized the mining and application of a wider range of medical data under the requirements of privacy protection. By leveraging this effective privacy protection technique, clinical researchers can extract valuable insights on diseases and population health from the physical examination data without the risk of leaking private information.
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 | 0.045 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".