↓ Skip to main content

Automatic de-identification of textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
patent
4 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
194 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automatic de-identification of textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-10-70
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephane M Meystre, F Jeffrey Friedlin, Brett R South, Shuying Shen, Matthew H Samore

Abstract

In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects the confidentiality of patient data and requires the informed consent of the patient and approval of the Internal Review Board to use data for research purposes, but these requirements can be waived if data is de-identified. For clinical data to be considered de-identified, the HIPAA "Safe Harbor" technique requires 18 data elements (called PHI: Protected Health Information) to be removed. The de-identification of narrative text documents is often realized manually, and requires significant resources. Well aware of these issues, several authors have investigated automated de-identification of narrative text documents from the electronic health record, and a review of recent research in this domain is presented here.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 4%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 232 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 16%
Student > Master 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Other 17 7%
Other 49 19%
Unknown 39 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 96 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Engineering 10 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 56 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,948,771
of 22,287,733 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#660
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,866
of 144,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,287,733 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 144,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them