| Literature DB >> 35207676 |
Junhak Lee1, Jinwoo Jeong1, Sungji Jung1, Jihoon Moon1, Seungmin Rho1.
Abstract
With the development of big data and cloud computing technologies, the importance of pseudonym information has grown. However, the tools for verifying whether the de-identification methodology is correctly applied to ensure data confidentiality and usability are insufficient. This paper proposes a verification of de-identification techniques for personal healthcare information by considering data confidentiality and usability. Data are generated and preprocessed by considering the actual statistical data, personal information datasets, and de-identification datasets based on medical data to represent the de-identification technique as a numeric dataset. Five tree-based regression models (i.e., decision tree, random forest, gradient boosting machine, extreme gradient boosting, and light gradient boosting machine) are constructed using the de-identification dataset to effectively discover nonlinear relationships between dependent and independent variables in numerical datasets. Then, the most effective model is selected from personal information data in which pseudonym processing is essential for data utilization. The Shapley additive explanation, an explainable artificial intelligence technique, is applied to the most effective model to establish pseudonym processing policies and machine learning to present a machine-learning process that selects an appropriate de-identification methodology.Entities:
Keywords: de-identification; explainable artificial intelligence; machine learning; medical data; tree-based method
Year: 2022 PMID: 35207676 PMCID: PMC8877642 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12020190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Overall architecture of the proposed approach. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
Figure 2TreeMap of leading family names and their percentages.
Figure 3Pie chart of the percentage of each age group in the South Korean population.
Province and metropolitan city information for South Korea.
| Name | Provincial Level | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Seoul | Special city | 18.5 |
| Busan | Metropolitan city | 6.5 |
| Daegu | Metropolitan city | 4.7 |
| Incheon | Metropolitan city | 5.7 |
| Gwangju | Metropolitan city | 2.9 |
| Daejeon | Metropolitan city | 2.9 |
| Ulsan | Metropolitan city | 2.2 |
| Sejong | Special self-governing city | 0.7 |
| North Chungcheong | Province | 3.1 |
| South Chungcheong | Province | 4.2 |
| Gangwon | Province | 2.9 |
| Gyeonggi | Province | 26.1 |
| North Gyeongsang | Province | 5.1 |
| South Gyeongsang | Province | 6.4 |
| North Jeolla | Province | 3.5 |
| South Jeolla | Province | 3.5 |
| Jeju | Special self-governing province | 1.3 |
Figure 4Labeling rules for the family name. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
Labeling rule for age. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
| De-Identification Methodology | Example | Labeled Value |
|---|---|---|
| Original (identification) | 12, 25 | 02 |
| De-identification for one character | 1 *, 2 * | 11 |
| De-identification for two characters | **, ** | 20 |
Labeling rule for phone number. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
| De-Identification Methodology | Example | Labeled Value |
|---|---|---|
| Original (identification) | 010-1234-5678 | 08 |
| De-identification for one character | 010-1***-**** | 17 |
| De-identification for all characters | ***-****-**** | 80 |
Labeling rule for other items. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
| De-Identification Methodology | Example | Labeled Value |
|---|---|---|
| Original (identification) | bruise | 1 |
| De-identification for all characters | * | 0 |
Example of calculation for data usability. An asterisk (*) indicates a de-identified character from personal information.
| Independent Variables | Example | Labeling Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Lee, ***-Hak | 12 |
| Age | 2 * | 11 |
| Phone number | 010-7 ***-**** | 17 |
| Blood type | A | 1 |
| Address | Seoul | 1 |
| Name of illness | * | 0 |
| Smoking status | X | 1 |
| Data usability | (1 × 2) + (1 × 1) + (1 × 7) + (1) + (1) + (0) + (1) | 13 |
Example of the calculation of data confidentiality.
| Percentage | Confidentiality Value |
|---|---|
| 0–20% | 15 |
| 21–40% | 12 |
| 41–60% | 9 |
| 61–80% | 6 |
| 81–99% | 3 |
| 99–100% | 1 |
| 100% | 0 |
Hyperparameters and ranges of decision-tree-based methods.
| Method | Hyperparameters and Ranges |
|---|---|
| DT | min_samples_split (minimum number of samples required to split an internal node): 2, 7 |
| RF | n_estimators (number of trees in the forest): 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300, 400 |
| GBM | n_estimators: 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 |
| XGBoost | objective (learning task and corresponding learning objective): reg:squarederror (regression with squared loss) |
| LightGBM | num_estimators: 20, 100, 200, 400, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100 |
DT, decision tree; RF, random forest; GBM, gradient boosting machine; XGBoost, extreme gradient boosting; and LightGBM, light gradient boosting machine.
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and R-square comparison.
| Methods | Hyperparameter Values | RMSE |
| Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DT | min_samples_split: 7 | 0.666 | 0.985 | 0.926 |
| RF | n_estimators: 250 | 0.633 | 0.982 | 15.066 |
| GBM | n_estimators: 100 | 1.079 | 0.924 | 191.734 |
| XGBoost | random_state: 0 | 0.642 | 0.986 | 65.578 |
| LightGBM | num_estimators: 500 | 0.625 | 0.986 | 21.336 |
DT, decision tree; RF, random forest; GBM, gradient boosting machine; XGBoost, extreme gradient boosting; and LightGBM, light gradient boosting machine.
Figure 5Sample Shapley additive explanation force plot for final score prediction.
Figure 6Summary plot of selected Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values.
Figure 7Feature importance based on Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values.
Figure 8Performance comparison of four famous regression models in the medical field. Multiple linear regression (MLR); support vector regression (SVR); deep neural network (DNN); and Light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM).