ArticleInternational journal of population data science2023
Machine learning models in trusted research environments - understanding operational risks.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Data protection legislation in Africa and pathways for enhancing compliance in big data health research.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Construction of a poor prognosis prediction and visualization system for intracranial aneurysm endovascular intervention treatment based on an improved machine learning model.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- The health informatics centre: a safe haven and trusted research environment enabling world-leading research.International journal of population data science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Trusted research environments (TREs) provide secure access to very sensitive data for research. All TREs operate manual checks on outputs to ensure there is no residual disclosure risk. Machine learning (ML) models require very large amount of data; if this data is personal, the TRE is a well-established data management solution. However, ML models present novel disclosure risks, in both type and scale. Objectives: As part of a series on ML disclosure risk in TREs, this article is intended to introduce TRE managers to the conceptual problems and work being done to address them. Methods: We demonstrate how ML models present a qualitatively different type of disclosure risk, compared to traditional statistical outputs. These arise from both the nature and the scale of ML modelling. Results: We show that there are a large number of unresolved issues, although there is progress in many areas. We show where areas of uncertainty remain, as well as remedial responses available to TREs. Conclusions: At this stage, disclosure checking of ML models is very much a specialist activity. However, TRE managers need a basic awareness of the potential risk in ML models to enable them to make sensible decisions on using TREs for ML model development.
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.