ReviewAI and ethics2025
What is the patient re-identification risk from using de-identified clinical free text data for health research?
Review in AI and ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guiding Policymakers Toward Better AI Ethics Integration in Healthcare Regulation-Lessons from Singapore.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Health Professional Students' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence During Clinical Placements: Cross-Sectional Online Survey Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Proposal of a procedure to stratify the reidentification risk of medical data: RIMEDA.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Student voices: synergising artificial and human intelligence in health science education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Commercial or industrial use of mental health data for research: primer and best-practice guidelines from the DATAMIND patient/public Lived Experience Advisory Group.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Listening to Patients' Voices on the Use of AI in Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Important clinical information is recorded in free text in patients' records, notes, letters and reports in healthcare settings. This information is currently under-used for health research and innovation. Free text requires more processing for analysis than structured data, but processing natural language at scale has recently advanced, using large language models. However, data controllers are often concerned about patient privacy risks if clinical text is allowed to be used in research. Text can be de-identified, yet it is challenging to quantify the residual risk of patient re-identification. This paper presents a comprehensive review and discussion of elements for consideration when evaluating the risk of patient re-identification from free text. We consider (1) the reasons researchers want access to free text; (2) the accuracy of automated de-identification processes, identifying best practice; (3) methods previously used for re-identifying health data and their success; (4) additional protections put in place around health data, particularly focussing on the UK where "Five Safes" secure data environments are used; (5) risks of harm to patients from potential re-identification and (6) public views on free text being used for research. We present a model to conceptualise and evaluate risk of re-identification, accompanied by case studies of successful governance of free text for research in the UK. When de-identified and stored in secure data environments, the risk of patient re-identification from clinical free text is very low. More health research should be enabled by routinely storing and giving access to de-identified clinical text data.
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.