ArticleScientific reports2023
Man vs the machine in the struggle for effective text anonymisation in the age of large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating privacy leakages in LLM-driven ambient clinical documentation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Navigating the tradeoff between personal privacy and data utility in speech anonymization for clinical research.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- A Markov Chain Replacement Strategy for Surrogate Identifiers: Minimizing Re-Identification Risk While Preserving Text Reuse.Electronics · 2025Article
- Review
- Perceptions of health data commodification in AI-driven healthcare systems in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Evaluating the understanding of the ethical and moral challenges of Big Data and AI among Jordanian medical students, physicians in training, and senior practitioners: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Human intuition as a defense against attribute inference.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The collection and use of personal data are becoming more common in today's data-driven culture. While there are many advantages to this, including better decision-making and service delivery, it also poses significant ethical issues around confidentiality and privacy. Text anonymisation tries to prune and/or mask identifiable information from a text while keeping the remaining content intact to alleviate privacy concerns. Text anonymisation is especially important in industries like healthcare, law, as well as research, where sensitive and personal information is collected, processed, and exchanged under high legal and ethical standards. Although text anonymisation is widely adopted in practice, it continues to face considerable challenges. The most significant challenge is striking a balance between removing information to protect individuals' privacy while maintaining the text's usability for future purposes. The question is whether these anonymisation methods sufficiently reduce the risk of re-identification, in which an individual can be identified based on the remaining information in the text. In this work, we challenge the effectiveness of these methods and how we perceive identifiers. We assess the efficacy of these methods against the elephant in the room, the use of AI over big data. While most of the research is focused on identifying and removing personal information, there is limited discussion on whether the remaining information is sufficient to deanonymise individuals and, more precisely, who can do it. To this end, we conduct an experiment using GPT over anonymised texts of famous people to determine whether such trained networks can deanonymise them. The latter allows us to revise these methods and introduce a novel methodology that employs Large Language Models to improve the anonymity of texts.
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.