ArticleJAMIA open2021
Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers.
Article in JAMIA open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- ClinFly: an all-in-one method to translate, de-identify, and summarize medical reports in HPO format.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- A Transformer-Based Pipeline for German Clinical Document De-Identification.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Potentially Identifying Variables Reported in 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles: Implications for Data Sharing and Secondary Analysis.Forum, qualitative social research · 2023Article
- Development of an Open-Source Annotated Glaucoma Medication Dataset From Clinical Notes in the Electronic Health Record.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Twenty Years of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Safe Harbor Provision: Unsolved Challenges and Ways Forward.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Applications of natural language processing in ophthalmology: present and future.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers.PloS one · 2021Article
- Responsible Sharing of Qualitative Research Data: Insights From a Pioneering Project in the United States.International journal of qualitative methodsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSharing health research data is essential for accelerating the translation of research into actionable knowledge that can impact health care services and outcomes. Qualitative health research data are rarely shared due to the challenge of deidentifying text and the potential risks of participant reidentification. Here, we establish and evaluate a framework for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques including removal of identifiers that are not considered HIPAA Safe Harbor (HSH) identifiers but are likely to be found in unstructured qualitative data. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed and validated a pipeline for deidentifying qualitative research data using automated computational techniques. An in-depth analysis and qualitative review of different types of qualitative health research data were conducted to inform and evaluate the development of a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline using named-entity recognition, pattern matching, dictionary, and regular expression methods to deidentify qualitative texts.
resultsWe collected 2 datasets with 1.2 million words derived from over 400 qualitative research data documents. We created a gold-standard dataset with 280K words (70 files) to evaluate our deidentification pipeline. The majority of identifiers in qualitative data are non-HSH and not captured by existing systems. Our NLP deidentification pipeline had a consistent F1-score of ∼0.90 for both datasets.
conclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that NLP methods can be used to identify both HSH identifiers and non-HSH identifiers. Automated tools to assist researchers with the deidentification of qualitative data will be increasingly important given the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) data-sharing mandate.
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.