ArticleHealthcare informatics research2022
Protected Health Information Recognition by Fine-Tuning a Pre-training Transformer Model.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificially Intelligent Billing in Spine Surgery: An Analysis of a Large Language Model.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- A Transformer-Based Pipeline for German Clinical Document De-Identification.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Multifaceted Natural Language Processing Task-Based Evaluation of Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformers Models for Bilingual (Korean and English) Clinical Notes: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Can a Novel Natural Language Processing Model and Artificial Intelligence Automatically Generate Billing Codes From Spine Surgical Operative Notes?Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Using automated methods to detect safety problems with health information technology: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Deep learning-based methods for natural hazard named entity recognition.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDe-identifying protected health information (PHI) in medical documents is important, and a prerequisite to deidentification is the identification of PHI entity names in clinical documents. This study aimed to compare the performance of three pre-training models that have recently attracted significant attention and to determine which model is more suitable for PHI recognition.
methodsWe compared the PHI recognition performance of deep learning models using the i2b2 2014 dataset. We used the three pre-training models-namely, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), robustly optimized BERT pre-training approach (RoBERTa), and XLNet (model built based on Transformer-XL)-to detect PHI. After the dataset was tokenized, it was processed using an inside-outside-beginning tagging scheme and WordPiecetokenized to place it into these models. Further, the PHI recognition performance was investigated using BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet.
resultsComparing the PHI recognition performance of the three models, it was confirmed that XLNet had a superior F1-score of 96.29%. In addition, when checking PHI entity performance evaluation, RoBERTa and XLNet showed a 30% improvement in performance compared to BERT.
conclusionsAmong the pre-training models used in this study, XLNet exhibited superior performance because word embedding was well constructed using the two-stream self-attention method. In addition, compared to BERT, RoBERTa and XLNet showed superior performance, indicating that they were more effective in grasping the context.
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.