ArticleIEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
Are My EHRs Private Enough? Event-Level Privacy Protection.
Article in IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Privacy is a major concern in sharing human subject data to researchers for secondary analyses. A simple binary consent (opt-in or not) may significantly reduce the amount of sharable data, since many patients might only be concerned about a few sensitive medical conditions rather than the entire medical records. We propose event-level privacy protection, and develop a feature ablation method to protect event-level privacy in electronic medical records. Using a list of 13 sensitive diagnoses, we evaluate the feasibility and the efficacy of the proposed method. As feature ablation progresses, the identifiability of a sensitive medical condition decreases with varying speeds on different diseases. We find that these sensitive diagnoses can be divided into three categories: (1) five diseases have fast declining identifiability (AUC below 0.6 with less than 400 features excluded); (2) seven diseases with progressively declining identifiability (AUC below 0.7 with between 200 and 700 features excluded); and (3) one disease with slowly declining identifiability (AUC above 0.7 with 1,000 features excluded). The fact that the majority (12 out of 13) of the sensitive diseases fall into the first two categories suggests the potential of the proposed feature ablation method as a solution for event-level record privacy protection.
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.