Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34435175›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2021

Enabling qualitative research data sharing using a natural language processing pipeline for deidentification: moving beyond HIPAA Safe Harbor identifiers.

Aditi Gupta, Albert Lai, Jessica Mozersky, Xiaoteng Ma, Heidi Walsh, James M DuBois

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aditi GuptaInstitute for Informatics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Albert LaiInstitute for Informatics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9241-2656
Jessica MozerskyBioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Xiaoteng MaInstitute for Informatics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Heidi WalshBioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
James M DuBoisBioethics Research Center, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3712-7051
General Sciences (United States) · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
SHARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL BARRIERSR01HG009351 · NHGRI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI James M Dubois · 2017 to 2026
$4.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009351
6 · The paper itself

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

data sharingdeidentificationnatural language processingqualitative research data

Identifiers

PMID34435175
PMCPMC8382275
OpenAlexW3194092193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.