Paper detail

An experimental evaluation of de-identification tools for electronic health records

The robust development of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) causes a significant growth in sharing EHRs for clinical research. However, such a sharing makes it difficult to protect patient's privacy. A number of automated de-identification tools have been developed to reduce the re-identification risk of published data, while preserving its statistical meaning. In this paper, we focus on the experimental evaluation of existing automated de-identification tools, as applied to our EHR database, to assess which tool performs better with each quasi-identifiers defined in our paper. Performance of each tool is analyzed wrt. two aspects: individual disclosure risk and information loss. Through this experiment, the generalization method has better performance on reducing risk and lower degree of information loss than suppression, which validates it as more appropriate de-identification technique for EHR databases.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.