ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2020
Evaluation of Automated Public De-Identification Tools on a Corpus of Radiology Reports.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking transformer-based models for medical record de-identification in a single center multi-specialty evaluation.iScience · 2025Article
- A Markov Chain Replacement Strategy for Surrogate Identifiers: Minimizing Re-Identification Risk While Preserving Text Reuse.Electronics · 2025Article
- Best Practices for the Safe Use of Large Language Models and Other Generative AI in Radiology.Radiology · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- An Extensible Evaluation Framework Applied to Clinical Text Deidentification Natural Language Processing Tools: Multisystem and Multicorpus Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Exploring Freely Available Data Tools to Support Open Data and Open Science.Journal of hospital librarianship · 2024Article
- Feasibility of Using the Privacy-preserving Large Language Model Vicuna for Labeling Radiology Reports.Radiology · 2023Article
- Automated deidentification of radiology reports combining transformer and "hide in plain sight" rule-based methods.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Ensemble Approaches to Recognize Protected Health Information in Radiology Reports.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Nuclear Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: Best Practices for Algorithm Development.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- Automated De-Identification: Embracing the Imperfect.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.