ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2025
DIRI: Adversarial Patient Reidentification with Large Language Models for Evaluating Clinical Text Anonymization.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Emerging Role of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence in Urological Surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Evaluating the accuracy of automated and semi-automated anonymization tools for unstructured health records.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sharing protected health information (PHI) is critical for furthering biomedical research. Before data can be distributed, practitioners often perform deidentification to remove any PHI contained in the text. Contemporary deidentification methods are evaluated on highly saturated datasets (tools achieve near-perfect accuracy) which may not reflect the full variability or complexity of real-world clinical text and annotating them is resource intensive, which is a barrier to real-world applications. To address this gap, we developed an adversarial approach using a large language model (LLM) to re-identify the patient corresponding to a redacted clinical note and evaluated the performance with a novel De-Identification/Re-Identification (DIRI) method. Our method uses a large language model to reidentify the patient corresponding to a redacted clinical note. We demonstrate our method on medical data from Weill Cornell Medicine anonymized with three deidentification tools: rule-based Philter and two deep-learning-based models, BiLSTM-CRF and ClinicalBERT. Although ClinicalBERT was the most effective, masking all identified PII, our tool still reidentified 9% of clinical notes Our study highlights significant weaknesses in current deidentification technologies while providing a tool for iterative development and improvement.
Identifiers
40502277PMC12150728What 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.