Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217861›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Nonspecific deidentification of date-like text in deidentified clinical notes enables reidentification of dates.

Jes Alexander, Alexis Beatty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jes AlexanderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Alexis BeattyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To facilitate the secondary usage of electronic health record data for research, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) recently implemented a clinical data warehouse including, among other data, deidentified clinical notes and reports, which are available to UCSF researchers without Institutional Review Board approval. For deidentification of these notes, most of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act identifiers are redacted, but dates are transformed by shifting all dates for a patient back by the same random number of days. We describe an issue in which nonspecific (ie, excess) transformation of nondate, date-like text by this deidentification process enables reidentification of all dates, including birthdates, for certain patients. This issue undercuts the common assumption that excess deidentification is a safe tradeoff to protect patient privacy. We present this issue as a caution to other institutions that may also be considering releasing deidentified notes for research.

Indexed as

Data AnonymizationText MessagingConfidentialityElectronic Health RecordsHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActHumansUnited Statesconfidentialitydata anonymizationelectronic health recordspersonally identifiable informationreidentification

Identifiers

PMID36217861
PMCPMC9552287

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.