ArticleIEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering2017
Scalable Iterative Classification for Sanitizing Large-Scale Datasets.
Article in IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Missing value replacement in strings and applications.Data mining and knowledge discovery · 2025Article
- Resilience of clinical text de-identified with "hiding in plain sight" to hostile reidentification attacks by human readers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- The machine giveth and the machine taketh away: a parrot attack on clinical text deidentified with hiding in plain sight.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Scalable Iterative Classification for Sanitizing Large-Scale Datasets.IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cheap ubiquitous computing enables the collection of massive amounts of personal data in a wide variety of domains. Many organizations aim to share such data while obscuring features that could disclose personally identifiable information. Much of this data exhibits weak structure (e.g., text), such that machine learning approaches have been developed to detect and remove identifiers from it. While learning is never perfect, and relying on such approaches to sanitize data can leak sensitive information, a small risk is often acceptable. Our goal is to balance the value of published data and the risk of an adversary discovering leaked identifiers. We model data sanitization as a game between 1) a publisher who chooses a set of classifiers to apply to data and publishes only instances predicted as non-sensitive and 2) an attacker who combines machine learning and manual inspection to uncover leaked identifying information. We introduce a fast iterative greedy algorithm for the publisher that ensures a low utility for a resource-limited adversary. Moreover, using five text data sets we illustrate that our algorithm leaves virtually no automatically identifiable sensitive instances for a state-of-the-art learning algorithm, while sharing over 93% of the original data, and completes after at most 5 iterations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.