Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

RedactOR: An LLM-Powered Framework for Automatic Clinical Data De-Identification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read RedactOR claims that a zero-fine-tuning, prompt-adaptable LLM pipeline can match specialized commercial de-identification services on the i2b2 2014 benchmark, reporting F1 0.9646.

desk verdict Real engineering, overstated headline: the JSL comparability claim only holds under the most permissive of the paper's own metrics. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18380 v2 pith:45SHVBPI submitted 2025-05-23 cs.AI cs.LG

Praphul Singh , Charlotte Dzialo , Jangwon Kim , Sumana Srivatsa , Irfan Bulu , Sri Gadde , Krishnaram Kenthapadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords de-identificationclinicalnaturallanguageprocessinglargemodelsprotectedhealthinformationmulti-passentityextractionrelexicalizationaudioredactioni2b22014
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

RedactOR is a modular, LLM-based pipeline for stripping protected health information out of electronic health records, both text and audio, without any model fine-tuning. The paper's central claim is that on 100 randomly sampled notes from the i2b2 2014 corpus, the framework reaches an overall F1 of 0.9646, beating other zero-shot LLM approaches and landing within a whisker of John Snow Labs' specialized commercial API, while staying ahead of AWS Comprehend Medical. The hard problem it addresses is precision: identical strings can be PHI in one context and benign clinical data in another, so the framework asks the LLM to return each entity with a short position hint (e.g., "76 years old") and uses multiple passes that mask already-found entities to recover missed ones. If the claim holds, prompt-adaptable LLM pipelines can serve as practical, cheaper alternatives to closed commercial de-identification services, and the same architecture extends to muting audio by combining transcription with voice-activity detection.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Auto De-ID pipeline, a chunk-then-multi-pass LLM extraction loop with position hints. Text is split into chunks of 256 words; in each pass the LLM returns entity types with the literal phrases plus nearby context; already found entities are masked in subsequent passes so the model refocuses on missed PHI; extraction outputs are aggregated and mapped back onto the text via context-based matching rather than character indices. The other components that carry the argument are the schema identifier and router (deciding by field whether to pass through, mask, hash, or call the LLM), the retrieval-based Auto Relexicalizer (clustering entities, retrieving prior replacements via vector search, validating them, and storing new surrogates in an index), and the two-step Audio De-ID component (ASR-based timestamped entity detection with added margins, plus voice-activity-detection-identified missing speech regions scored by an LLM for PHI likelihood).

What would settle it

Take the full i2b2 2014 corpus, or the same 100 notes with the random seed disclosed, run the same GPT-4o prompts with max_passes set to 2 and chunk size 256, and compute entity-level F1 with exact span matching; if the F1 drops substantially below 0.9646 or the gap to JSL widens, the headline performance claim fails. A more targeted check is to vary the Levenshtein threshold between 0.5 and 0.8 and report how precision, recall, and F1 move; if F1 is threshold-sensitive, the published scores are an artifact of the matching rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that a zero-fine-tuning, prompt-driven de-identification system can be engineered to combine high recall with the precision needed to avoid over-redaction. RedactOR achieves this with chunked, multi-pass LLM extraction in which each pass masks previously found entities and forces attention onto missed PHI; position hints that locate each entity through surrounding words instead of unreliable character offsets; and a schema-driven router that reserves LLM processing for free-text fields while handling structured fields with cheaper rules such as pass-through, masking, or hashing. Evaluated at entity-span level on a 100-note i2b2 2014 subsample, the pipeline reports F1 0.9646, precision 0.9769, recall 0.9525, and all-or-nothing recall 0.79, outperforming the other LLM baselines on the same GPT-4o backbone and matching JSL's F1 0.9669 despite JSL being fine-tuned on proprietary clinical data. The paper further claims a two-step audio redaction approach—ASR plus LLM-based detection, then voice-activity-detection-guided re-scoring of unrecognized voiced regions—raises all-or-nothing recall on direct identifiers by about 12 percent on internal audio.

Load-bearing premise

The reported performance rests on the assumption that the randomly selected 100-note subsample of the i2b2 2014 corpus, scored with a custom entity-matching rule using a Levenshtein threshold of 0.6, reflects how the system performs on the full corpus and on real-world records.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported scores hold, an organization can obtain near-commercial de-identification quality without annotated training data; the ablation shows recall mainly saturates after two to three passes, and the pass count is a configurable parameter for different LLMs.
  • The multi-pass masking strategy specifically recovers sparse, context-sensitive entity types like ID, DATE, and LOCATION, most of which are missed in the first pass, implying that extra passes act as a recall lever independent of the underlying model.
  • Position hints allow identical strings in different contexts to be treated differently (e.g., "76 years old" versus "76 mg"), reducing over-redaction and preserving clinical utility, a direct corollary of the precision numbers.
  • The relexicalization component claims to preserve identity coherence across documents by retrieving existing replacements before generating new ones and to strengthen privacy through the Hiding in Plain Sight factor, although the reported benchmark was run with relexicalization turned off.
  • The audio pipeline's second step increases recall on direct identifiers by roughly 12 percent on internal data, with over 84 percent of the additionally muted content judged not to harm clinical utility.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's tests, the headline F1 should be re-verified on the full i2b2 2014 corpus with the sampling seed disclosed and with exact span matching, since the Levenshtein 0.6 threshold could be inflating entity-level agreement.
  • A natural follow-up the authors do not run is pairing RedactOR with a high-recall fallback for DATE and LOCATION, the entity types where it lags JSL, and measuring whether the combined system closes the recall gap without losing precision.
  • The longitudinal structure of i2b2, with two to five notes per patient, is well suited to testing the relexicalizer's consistency claim using the Replacement Consistency Score the paper proposes; such an evaluation is left as future work.
  • Because the schema-driven router already hashes identifiers in structured fields, the framework could serve as a privacy-preserving record-linkage tool across documents, a downstream use the paper does not discuss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents RedactOR, a multi-modal framework for de-identifying clinical text and audio, combining rule-based routing, multi-pass LLM-based entity extraction with context-based position hints, a retrieval-based relexicalization component, and a two-step audio redaction pipeline. The text de-identification component is evaluated on a 100-note random subsample of the i2b2 2014 corpus against two zero-shot LLM baselines and two commercial APIs (AWS and JSL), reporting an F1 of 0.9646 (Table 1) and claiming performance comparable to JSL, while the audio component is evaluated qualitatively on internal data. The paper also discusses production deployment, cost optimizations, and lessons learned over 12+ months.

Significance. If the performance claim survives a more rigorous and standard evaluation, RedactOR would be a valuable contribution: it would demonstrate that a zero-fine-tuning, prompt-adaptable LLM framework with multi-pass extraction and context-based matching can perform competitively with specialized commercial de-identification APIs on a widely used benchmark. The multi-pass ablation with LLaMA-3.2-3B (Figure 2), the token-usage optimization discussion (Section 5), and the modular architecture with clearly described components are concrete strengths. The framework's potential to adapt to new entity types via prompts, without retraining, is practically important. However, the current evaluation does not fully support the headline claim, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, Section 6, Tables 1-3] The central claim that RedactOR 'achieves performance comparable to specialized, closed-source solutions' rests on Table 1, where RedactOR F1=0.9646 and JSL=0.9669, but Table 1 explicitly does not enforce entity-type constraints and uses a Levenshtein similarity threshold of 0.6. Under the paper's own stricter evaluations, RedactOR trails JSL by 2.86 points in entity-type-constrained F1 (Table 2: 0.9465 vs. 0.9751) and by 6.92 points in all-or-nothing recall (Table 3: 0.8214 vs. 0.8906). The 'comparable' conclusion is therefore sensitive to the choice of evaluation metric, and the manuscript should either temper the claim or provide an analysis demonstrating that comparability holds under multiple standard metrics.
  2. [Section 4.1] The evaluation uses a randomly selected subsample of 100 notes from the i2b2 2014 corpus, with no seed, note IDs, or comparison of the subsample's characteristics to the full corpus. Because all headline results and hyperparameter decisions (Section 3.2, Appendix A.3) are based on this single subsample, the representativeness of the sample is load-bearing; the paper should report subsample statistics (e.g., entity-type distribution, note lengths) and ideally provide confidence intervals via repeated subsampling or bootstrapping.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 1] The evaluation metric is a custom entity-level match using Levenshtein similarity with a threshold of 0.6, described as 'heuristically determined.' No sensitivity analysis is provided for the threshold; since the F1 gap in Table 1 is only 0.0023, threshold variation could plausibly reverse the ordering or widen the gap. The paper should report results for a range of thresholds and also report standard i2b2 token-level or exact-span metrics, which would allow direct comparison with prior published results.
  4. [Section 3.2, Appendix A.3, Figure 2] The hyperparameters ω=256 and p=2 are described as 'heuristically chosen' and 'chosen based on preliminary tuning' (Appendix A.3), while the ablation in Figure 2 varies p on what appears to be the same 100-note evaluation set. If the same subsample is used for both hyperparameter selection and final evaluation, the reported scores are likely optimistically biased and there is no held-out validation. The paper should clarify the tuning/evaluation split and, if necessary, re-evaluate on a held-out set or report the selection procedure in detail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.9.3, Listing 3] In the 'AGE' array, the two entries are separated by a newline without a comma ('45 years' and '45-year-old'), which appears to be a formatting error.
  2. [Appendix A.9.3, Listing 3] The same listing labels the SSN '987-65-4321' as both 'SSN_OR_TAXPAYER' and 'GUID', which is inconsistent with the entity definitions in Appendix C; the example should clarify why one SSN appears in two entity categories.
  3. [Appendix A.5.1] The worked audio example contains a typo ('Lets say') and does not clearly align with Algorithm 2; for instance, the transcript reconstruction step is not part of the algorithm as written.
  4. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'a stricter methodology for true positive computation' is ambiguous because the custom Levenshtein matching is, if anything, more permissive than exact token or span matching; the wording should be revised to describe precisely what is stricter.
  5. [Section 4.5 and references] The paper states that commercial APIs such as JSL are 'fine-tuned on proprietary clinical datasets,' but the cited supporting reference (Kocaman et al., 2025) is titled 'Can zero-shot commercial APIs deliver regulatory-grade clinical text deidentification?'; the claim and the citation should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RedactOR's performance claims rest on an external benchmark and independent baselines, not on a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The central claim—that RedactOR outperforms other LLM-based methods and approaches specialized commercial solutions—is supported by direct evaluation on the externally published i2b2 2014 De-ID corpus (Stubbs and Uzuner, 2015), with comparisons against independent baselines, including Yashwanth and Shettar (2024), Altalla' et al. (2025), AWS Comprehend Medical, and John Snow Labs. The system's components (Auto De-ID, Auto Relexicalizer, Audio De-ID) are described algorithmically and evaluated by those benchmark results; no component is defined in terms of the headline score. The only adjustable quantities, such as chunk size, number of passes, and the Levenshtein similarity threshold of 0.6, are heuristically chosen hyperparameters or evaluation-tolerance settings, not fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions. The Levenshtein threshold is applied uniformly to all systems being compared, so it does not by construction force RedactOR's relative standing. The paper's claims about relexicalization reference prior work by Carrell et al. (2020) and Vakili et al. (2024), but these citations are not load-bearing self-citations and do not define the target result. The limitations of the evaluation, such as the unseeded 100-note subsample and the absence of confidence intervals, are methodological and reproducibility concerns, not circular reasoning. Overall, the manuscript is an empirical systems paper with externally anchored evaluation, and no circular step could be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's performance depends on several heuristically chosen hyperparameters (chunk size, pass count, matching threshold) and on assumptions about LLM output reliability and ASR/VAD accuracy. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • chunk size omega = 256 words
    Chosen heuristically to balance entity extraction accuracy and context length; ablation is only reported for passes, not for chunk size.
  • number of passes p = 2 (up to 4 ablated)
    Set to 2 for main experiments; Figure 2 shows entity recall increases with passes, so this choice directly affects reported recall and F1.
  • Levenshtein similarity threshold = 0.6
    Heuristically determined for entity-level text matching in evaluation; controls what counts as a true positive and can inflate recall.
  • audio redaction margin = 100-200 msec (also 300 msec in Appendix A.5.1)
    Added at token boundaries to compensate ASR errors; margin size affects privacy and utility trade-off.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The i2b2 2014 annotations define ground truth and the 100-note subsample is representative of the corpus and real-world EHRs.
    Section 4.1 uses a random subsample with no seed; all performance claims extrapolate from it.
  • domain assumption The LLM (GPT-4o) reliably returns entities as verbatim substrings with context hints and valid JSON on every pass.
    Algorithm 1 and Section A.4 rely on exact matching of extracted context phrases to redact; prompt templates assume JSON-only output.
  • domain assumption VAD and ASR timestamps accurately identify human speech regions and word boundaries in audio.
    Audio De-ID (Section A.5) mutes only segments with human-voiced timestamps; if VAD misses or mislabels speech, PHI leaks or over-redaction occurs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RedactOR: An LLM-Powered Framework for Automatic Clinical Data De-Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45SHVBPI

@misc{pith2026250518380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RedactOR: An LLM-Powered Framework for Automatic Clinical Data De-Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45SHVBPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18380}
}
read the original abstract

Ensuring clinical data privacy while preserving utility is critical for AI-driven healthcare and data analytics. Existing de-identification (De-ID) methods, including rule-based techniques, deep learning models, and large language models (LLMs), often suffer from recall errors, limited generalization, and inefficiencies, limiting their real-world applicability. We propose a fully automated, multi-modal framework, RedactOR for de-identifying structured and unstructured electronic health records, including clinical audio records. Our framework employs cost-efficient De-ID strategies, including intelligent routing, hybrid rule and LLM based approaches, and a two-step audio redaction approach. We present a retrieval-based entity relexicalization approach to ensure consistent substitutions of protected entities, thereby enhancing data coherence for downstream applications. We discuss key design desiderata, de-identification and relexicalization methodology, and modular architecture of RedactOR and its integration with the Oracle Health Clinical AI system. Evaluated on the i2b2 2014 De-ID dataset using standard metrics with strict recall, our approach achieves competitive performance while optimizing token usage to reduce LLM costs. Finally, we discuss key lessons and insights from deployment in real-world AI- driven healthcare data pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architectural overview of RedactOR requirements (§3.1), de-identification and relexical￾ization methodology and architecture (§3), and in￾tegration with the Oracle Health Clinical AI system (§A.8). We demonstrate that our framework outper￾forms other LLM-based approaches and achieves performance comparable to specialized, closed￾source solutions while remaining adaptable through prompt engineering – eliminating reli… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entity-wise all-or-nothing recall for LLaMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Audio De-Id Workflow Diagram Algorithm 2 Audio De-ID Algorithm Require: Audio A, ASR model MASR, VAD MV AD, De-ID model MDeid, PHI/PII Detec￾tor MLLM , entity types E Ensure: Redacted Audio ATˆ 1: Generate transcript T ← MASR(A) 2: Extract PHI/PII D ← MDeid(T, E) 3: Identify missing timestamps Tmissing and detect human speech with MV AD 4: for each human-voiced timestamp thuman do 5: Extract context, detect PHI/PII … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relexicalization Workflow Diagram poor substitution would be “Harry met his lawyer, Pizza Hut, at the firm”, introducing a semantic inconsistency. A more appropriate replacement would be “Harry met his lawyer, Mr. Bennett, at the firm”, maintaining contextual coherence…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagram explaining the integration of our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Tanbir Ahmed, Md Momin Al Aziz, and Noman Mohammed. 2020. De-identification of electronic health record using neural network. Scientific reports, 10(1):18600

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Md Momin Al Aziz, Tanbir Ahmed, Tasnia Faequa, Xiaoqian Jiang, Yiyu Yao, and Noman Mohammed. 2021. Differentially private medical texts generation using generative neural networks. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1):1--27

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Alyaa Alfalahi, Sara Brissman, and Hercules Dalianis. 2012. Pseudonymisation of personal names and other PHIs in an annotated clinical Swedish corpus. In Third Workshop on Building and Evaluating Resources for Biomedical Text Mining (BioTxtM 2012) Held in Conjunction with LREC, pages 49--54

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Bayan Altalla’, Sameera Abdalla, Ahmad Altamimi, Layla Bitar, Amal Al Omari, Ramiz Kardan, and Iyad Sultan. 2025. Evaluating GPT models for clinical note de-identification. Scientific Reports, 15(1):3852

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Md Adnan Arefeen, Biplob Debnath, and Srimat Chakradhar. 2024. LeanContext : Cost-efficient domain-specific question answering using LLMs . Natural Language Processing Journal, 7:100065

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    AWS. 2025. Amazon Comprehend Medical . https://aws.amazon.com/comprehend/medical/. Accessed: March, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Duane Bender and Kamran Sartipi. 2013. HL7 FHIR : An agile and RESTful approach to healthcare information exchange. In Proceedings of the 26th IEEE international symposium on computer-based medical systems, pages 326--331. IEEE

    2013

  2. [10]

    hiding in plain sight

    David S Carrell, Bradley A Malin, David J Cronkite, John S Aberdeen, Cheryl Clark, Muqun Li, Dikshya Bastakoty, Steve Nyemba, and Lynette Hirschman. 2020. Resilience of clinical text de-identified with “hiding in plain sight” to hostile reidentification attacks by human reader...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Franck Dernoncourt, Ji Young Lee, and Peter Szolovits. 2017. NeuroNER : An easy-to-use program for named-entity recognition based on neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05487

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Priyanshu Dhingra, Satyam Agrawal, Chandra Sekar Veerappan, Thi Nga Ho, Eng Siong Chng, and Rong Tong. 2024. Speech de-identification data augmentation leveraging large language model. In 2024 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP), pages 97--102. IEEE

    2024

  5. [13]

    Mehmet Kayaalp. 2018. Patient privacy in the era of big data. Balkan medical journal, 35(1):8--17

    2018

  6. [14]

    Woojin Kim, Sungeun Hahm, and Jaejin Lee. 2024. Generalizing clinical de-identification models by privacy-safe data augmentation using GPT -4. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 21204--21218

    2024

  7. [15]

    Veysel Kocaman, Muhammed Santas, Yigit Gul, Mehmet Butgul, and David Talby. 2025. Can zero-shot commercial APIs deliver regulatory-grade clinical text deidentification? In ECIR Workshop on Narrative Extraction from Texts (Text2Story)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Veysel Kocaman, D Talby, and H Ul Hak. 2023. RWD143 beyond accuracy: Automated de-identification of large real-world clinical text datasets. Value in Health, 26(12):S532

    2023

  9. [17]

    Aleksandar Kova c evi \'c , Bojana Ba s aragin, Nikola Milo s evi \'c , and Goran Nenadi \'c . 2024. De-identification of clinical free text using natural language processing: A systematic review of current approaches. Artificial intelligence in medicine, page 102845

    2024

  10. [18]

    Hee-Jin Lee, Yonghui Wu, Yaoyun Zhang, Jun Xu, Hua Xu, and Kirk Roberts. 2017. A hybrid approach to automatic de-identification of psychiatric notes. Journal of biomedical informatics, 75:S19--S27

    2017

  11. [19]

    Pierre Lison, Ildik \'o Pil \'a n, David S \'a nchez, Montserrat Batet, and Lilja vrelid. 2021. Anonymisation models for text data: State of the art, challenges and future directions. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics an...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Zengjian Liu, Buzhou Tang, Xiaolong Wang, and Qingcai Chen. 2017. De-identification of clinical notes via recurrent neural network and conditional random field. Journal of biomedical informatics, 75:S34--S42

    2017

  13. [21]

    Zhengliang Liu, Yue Huang, Xiaowei Yu, Lu Zhang, Zihao Wu, Chao Cao, Haixing Dai, Lin Zhao, Yiwei Li, Peng Shu, et al. 2023. DeID-GPT : Zero-shot medical text de-identification by GPT -4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11032

    2023

  14. [22]

    Xuezhe Ma and Eduard Hovy. 2016. End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional lstm-cnns-crf. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01354

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Christopher Meaney, Wali Hakimpour, Sumeet Kalia, and Rahim Moineddin. 2022. A comparative evaluation of transformer models for de-identification of clinical text data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07056

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    MetaAI. 2024. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/ LLaMA 3.2 . Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2024

  17. [25]

    Stephane M Meystre, F Jeffrey Friedlin, Brett R South, Shuying Shen, and Matthew H Samore. 2010. Automatic de-identification of textual documents in the electronic health record: A review of recent research. BMC medical research methodology, 10:1--16

    2010

  18. [26]

    Yahia Mohamed, Xing Song, Tamara M McMahon, Suman Sahil, Meredith Zozus, Zhan Wang, Greater Plains Collaborative, and Lemuel R Waitman. 2023. Electronic health record data quality variability across a multistate clinical research network. Journal of Clinical and Translational ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ishna Neamatullah, Margaret M Douglass, Li-Wei H Lehman, Andrew Reisner, Mauricio Villarroel, William J Long, Peter Szolovits, George B Moody, Roger G Mark, and Gari D Clifford. 2008. Automated de-identification of free-text medical records. BMC medical informatics and decisio...

    2008

  20. [28]

    Bekelu Negash, Alan Katz, Christine J Neilson, Moniruzzaman Moni, Marcello Nesca, Alexander Singer, and Jennifer E Enns. 2023. De-identification of free text data containing personal health information: A scoping review of reviews. International Journal of Population Data Scie...

    2023

  21. [29]

    OpenAI. 2025. GPT-4o documentation. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4o. Accessed: March, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Brian W Patterson, Daniel J Hekman, Frank J Liao, Azita G Hamedani, Manish N Shah, and Majid Afshar. 2024. Call me Dr Ishmael : Trends in electronic health record notes available at emergency department visits and admissions. JAMIA open, 7(2):ooae039

    2024

  23. [31]

    Martin Scaiano, Grant Middleton, Luk Arbuckle, Varada Kolhatkar, Liam Peyton, Moira Dowling, Debbie S Gipson, and Khaled El Emam. 2016. A unified framework for evaluating the risk of re-identification of text de-identification tools. Journal of biomedical informatics, 63:174--183

    2016

  24. [32]

    Shivanshu Shekhar, Tanishq Dubey, Koyel Mukherjee, Apoorv Saxena, Atharv Tyagi, and Nishanth Kotla. 2024. Towards optimizing the costs of LLM usage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01742

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Amber Stubbs, Michele Filannino, and \"O zlem Uzuner. 2017. De-identification of psychiatric intake records: Overview of 2016 CEGS N-GRID shared tasks Track 1. Journal of biomedical informatics, 75:S4--S18

    2017

  26. [34]

    Amber Stubbs and \"O zlem Uzuner. 2015. Annotating longitudinal clinical narratives for de-identification: The 2014 i2b2/UTHealth corpus. Journal of biomedical informatics, 58:S20--S29

    2015

  27. [35]

    Latanya Sweeney. 1996. Replacing personally-identifying information in medical records, the Scrub system. In Proceedings of the AMIA annual fall symposium, page 333

    1996

  28. [36]

    Thomas Vakili, Aron Henriksson, and Hercules Dalianis. 2024. End-to-end pseudonymization of fine-tuned clinical BERT models: Privacy preservation with maintained data utility. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 24(1):162

    2024

  29. [37]

    Clovis Varangot-Reille, Christophe Bouvard, Antoine Gourru, Mathieu Ciancone, Marion Schaeffer, and Fran c ois Jacquenet. 2025. Doing more with less--implementing routing strategies in large language model-based systems: An extended survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00409

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Isabella C Wiest, Marie-Elisabeth Le mann, Fabian Wolf, Dyke Ferber, Marko Van Treeck, Jiefu Zhu, Matthias P Ebert, Christoph Benedikt Westphalen, Martin Wermke, and Jakob Nikolas Kather. 2025. Deidentifying medical documents with local, privacy-preserving large language model...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Xi Yang, Tianchen Lyu, Qian Li, Chih-Yin Lee, Jiang Bian, William R Hogan, and Yonghui Wu. 2019. A study of deep learning methods for de-identification of clinical notes in cross-institute settings. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 19:1--9

    2019

  32. [40]

    YS Yashwanth and Rajashree Shettar. 2024. Zero and few short learning using large language models for de-identification of medical records. IEEE Access

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.