RMIT University
Browse

An evaluation of existing text de-identification tools for use with patient progress notes from Australian general practice

journal contribution
posted on 2024-11-02, 23:02 authored by Carol El-Hayek, Siamak Barzegar, Noel Faux, Kim Doyle, Cornelia VerspoorCornelia Verspoor
Introduction: Digitized patient progress notes from general practice represent a significant resource for clinical and public health research but cannot feasibly and ethically be used for these purposes without automated de-identification. Internationally, several open-source natural language processing tools have been developed, however, given wide variations in clinical documentation practices, these cannot be utilized without appropriate review. We evaluated the performance of four de-identification tools and assessed their suitability for customization to Australian general practice progress notes. Methods: Four tools were selected: three rule-based (HMS Scrubber, MIT De-id, Philter) and one machine learning (MIST). 300 patient progress notes from three general practice clinics were manually annotated with personally identifying information. We conducted a pairwise comparison between the manual annotations and patient identifiers automatically detected by each tool, measuring recall (sensitivity), precision (positive predictive value), f1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall), and f2-score (weighs recall 2x higher than precision). Error analysis was also conducted to better understand each tool's structure and performance. Results: Manual annotation detected 701 identifiers in seven categories. The rule-based tools detected identifiers in six categories and MIST in three. Philter achieved the highest aggregate recall (67%) and the highest recall for NAME (87%). HMS Scrubber achieved the highest recall for DATE (94%) and all tools performed poorly on LOCATION. MIST achieved the highest precision for NAME and DATE while also achieving similar recall to the rule-based tools for DATE and highest recall for LOCATION. Philter had the lowest aggregate precision (37%), however preliminary adjustments of its rules and dictionaries showed a substantial reduction in false positives. Conclusion: Existing off-the-shelf solutions for automated de-identification of cli

History

Related Materials

  1. 1.
    DOI - Is published in 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105021
  2. 2.
    ISSN - Is published in 13865056

Journal

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volume

173

Number

105021

Start page

1

End page

9

Total pages

9

Publisher

Elsevier

Place published

Ireland

Language

English

Copyright

© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Former Identifier

2006121740

Esploro creation date

2023-04-30

Usage metrics

    Scholarly Works

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC