Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28903886›Full record

ReviewBalkan medical journal2018

Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data.

Mehmet Kayaalp

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Balkan medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02795806 (NLM Scrubber), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02795806 enrolling by invitationnot on this map

NLM Scrubber: NLM's Software Application to De-identify Clinical Text Documents

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Library of Medicine (NLM)Ran2016 to 2027Enrolled50,000ConditionsPersonally Identifiable Information
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The Detection of Date Shifting in Real-World Data.Applied clinical informatics · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Hereditary Endocrine Tumor Registries.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mehmet KayaalpNational Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, ABD.

Funding

NLM's Software Application to De-identify Clinical Text DocumentsZIALM010002 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI KAYAALP, MEHMET · 2010 to 2020
$5.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Privacy was defined as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the 1948 United Nations General Assembly. However, there is still no consensus on what constitutes privacy. In this review, we look at the evolution of privacy as a concept from the era of Hippocrates to the era of social media and big data. To appreciate the modern measures of patient privacy protection and correctly interpret the current regulatory framework in the United States, we need to analyze and understand the concepts of individually identifiable information, individually identifiable health information, protected health information, and de-identification. The Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act defines the regulatory framework and casts a balance between protective measures and access to health information for secondary (scientific) use. The rule defines the conditions when health information is protected by law and how protected health information can be de-identified for secondary use. With the advents of artificial intelligence and computational linguistics, computational text de-identification algorithms produce de-identified results nearly as well as those produced by human experts, but much faster, more consistently and basically for free. Modern clinical text de-identification systems now pave the road to big data and enable scientists to access de-identified clinical information while firmly protecting patient privacy. However, clinical text de-identification is not a perfect process. In order to maximize the protection of patient privacy and to free clinical and scientific information from the confines of electronic healthcare systems, all stakeholders, including patients, health institutions and institutional review boards, scientists and the scientific communities, as well as regulatory and law enforcement agencies must collaborate closely. On the one hand, public health laws and privacy regulations define rules and responsibilities such as requesting and granting only the amount of health information that is necessary for the scientific study. On the other hand, developers of de-identification systems provide guidelines to use different modes of operations to maximize the effectiveness of their tools and the success of de-identification. Institutions with clinical repositories need to follow these rules and guidelines closely to successfully protect patient privacy. To open the gates of big data to scientific communities, healthcare institutions need to be supported in their de-identification and data sharing efforts by the public, scientific communities, and local, state, and federal legislators and government agencies.

Indexed as

Big DataConfidentialityAlgorithmsData AnonymizationHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActHumansPrivacyUnited Statesconfidentialitydata anonymization data sharingHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Actmedical informaticspersonally identifiable information privacy.

Identifiers

PMID28903886
PMCPMC5820452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.