ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
Toward Identifying New Risk Aversions and Subsequent Limitations and Biases When Making De-identified Structured Data Sets Openly Available in a Post-LLM world.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Making clinical datasets openly available is critical to promote reproducibility and transparency of scientific research. Currently, few datasets are accessible to the public. To support the open science initiative, we plan to release the structured clinical datasets from the CONCERN study. In this paper, we are presenting our de-identification approaches for structured data, considering the future inclusion of de-identified narrative notes and re-identification risks in the LLM era. Through literature review and collaborative consensus sessions, our team made informed decisions regarding dataset release, weighing the pros and cons of each choice, outlining limitation and bias introduced by the de-identification algorithm. To our best knowledge, this is the first study describing the rationales of de-identification decisions in the LLMs era, delineating the consequent problems that should be considered when using our data set. We advocate for transparent disclosure of de-identification decisions and associated limitations and biases with all openly available datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40417480PMC12099381What 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.