A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Automated anonymization of radiology reports: comparison of publicly available natural language processing and large language models. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: Medical reports, governed by HIPAA regulations, contain personal health information (PHI), restricting secondary data use. Utilizing natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLM), we sought to employ publicly available methods to automatically anonymize PHI in free-text radiology reports.

Materials And Methods: We compared two publicly available rule-based NLP models (spaCy; NLP, accuracy-optimized; NLP, speed-optimized; iteratively improved on 400 free-text CT-reports (test set)) and one offline LLM approach (LLM-model, LLaMa-2, Meta-AI) for PHI-anonymization. The three models were tested on 100 randomly selected chest CT reports. Two investigators assessed the anonymization of occurring PHI entities and whether clinical information was removed. Subsequently, precision, recall, and F1 scores were calculated.

Results: NLP and NLP successfully removed all instances of dates (n = 333), medical record numbers (MRN) (n = 6), and accession numbers (ACC) (n = 92). The LLM model removed all MRNs, 96% of ACCs, and 32% of dates. NLP was most consistent with a perfect F1-score of 1.00, followed by NLP with lower precision (0.86) and F1-score (0.92) for dates. The LLM model had perfect precision for MRNs, ACCs, and dates but the lowest recall for ACC (0.96) and dates (0.52), corresponding F1 scores of 0.98 and 0.68, respectively. Names were removed completely or majorly (i.e., one first or family name non-anonymized) in 100% (NLP), 72% (NLP), and 90% (LLM-model). Importantly, NLP and NLP did not remove medical information, while the LLM model did in 10% (n = 10).

Conclusion: Pre-trained NLP models can effectively anonymize free-text radiology reports, while anonymization with the LLM model is more prone to deleting medical information.

Key Points: Question This study compares NLP and locally hosted LLM techniques to ensure PHI anonymization without losing clinical information. Findings Pre-trained NLP models effectively anonymized radiology reports without removing clinical data, while a locally hosted LLM was less reliable, risking the loss of important information. Clinical relevance Fast, reliable, automated anonymization of PHI from radiology reports enables HIPAA-compliant secondary use, facilitating advanced applications like LLM-driven radiology analysis while ensuring ethical handling of sensitive patient data.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11148-xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

radiology reports
16
llm model
16
nlp
15
nlp models
12
automated anonymization
8
natural language
8
language processing
8
large language
8
language models
8
llm
8

Similar Publications