Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937843›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2020

Evaluation of Automated Public De-Identification Tools on a Corpus of Radiology Reports.

Jackson M Steinkamp, Taylor Pomeranz, Jason Adleberg, Charles E Kahn, Tessa S Cook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. DIRI: Adversarial Patient Reidentification with Large Language Models for Evaluating Clinical Text Anonymization.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Nuclear Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: Best Practices for Algorithm Development.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022
    Article
  11. Automated De-Identification: Embracing the Imperfect.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jackson M SteinkampDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7888-0691
Taylor PomeranzDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5783-4872
Jason AdlebergDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7875-170X
Charles E KahnDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6654-7434
Tessa S CookDepartment of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (J.M.S., T.P., J.A., C.E.K., T.S.C.); and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (J.M.S.).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate publicly available de-identification tools on a large corpus of narrative-text radiology reports. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, 21 categories of protected health information (PHI) in 2503 radiology reports were annotated from a large multihospital academic health system, collected between January 1, 2012 and January 8, 2019. A subset consisting of 1023 reports served as a test set; the remainder were used as domain-specific training data. The types and frequencies of PHI present within the reports were tallied. Five public de-identification tools were evaluated: MITRE Identification Scrubber Toolkit, U.S. National Library of Medicine‒Scrubber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology de-identification software, Emory Health Information DE-identification (HIDE) software, and Neuro named-entity recognition (NeuroNER). The tools were compared using metrics including recall, precision, and F1 score (the harmonic mean of recall and precision) for each category of PHI.

resultsThe annotators identified 3528 spans of PHI text within the 2503 reports. Cohen κ for interrater agreement was 0.938. Dates accounted for the majority of PHI found in the dataset of radiology reports (

conclusionPHI appeared infrequently within the corpus of reports studied, which created difficulties for training machine learning systems. Out-of-the-box de-identification tools achieved limited performance on the corpus of radiology reports, suggesting the need for further advancements in public datasets and trained models.

Identifiers

PMID33937843
PMCPMC8082401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.