ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Evaluating privacy leakages in LLM-driven ambient clinical documentation.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Automated documentation tools are being rapidly adopted in healthcare and clinical workflows. Among these are AI-enabled ambient scribing products, which transcribe conversations between patients and healthcare providers, then produce clinical records using automatic speech recognition (ASR) and generative AI such as Large Language Models (LLMs). While research suggests these technologies can reduce clinical burden, safe and responsible deployment requires that these tools determine what captured information is appropriate to record and under which circumstances. This presents a contextual privacy challenge distinct from PII leakage or data memorization and remains largely untested. Methods: We address this gap by operationalizing privacy leakage as the inappropriate inclusion of third-party personal information in LLM-generated clinical notes. We construct a benchmark of transcripts containing private information with gold standard clinical notes by enriching patient metadata from the aci-bench corpus and injecting third-party personal information across six relationship types and seven information topics. We evaluate open weight LLaMA 3.1 8 and 70 B, Mixtral 8×7B and 8×22B, and proprietary Claude 3.5 Haiku and Sonnet models on note generation using prompts with varied privacy and structural requirements. Results: All examined models leaked third-party information, and privacy instructions helped reduce leakage but proved neither complete nor robust as a solution. Models could generate privacy-infringing notes despite correctly identifying such information as inappropriate to share. Decomposing generation and privacy editing into separate steps could further reduce leakage, but only when privacy was defined with contextual specificity. Discussion: No single mitigation eliminated leakage entirely, but combining approaches yielded the greatest reductions. Results emphasize the need to build privacy-by-design systems and develop evaluation strategies that reflect emerging information synthesis and sharing practices.
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.