Evaluating the effects of machine pre-annotation and an interactive annotation interface on manual de-identification of clinical text.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Safe Harbor method requires removal of 18 types of protected health information (PHI) from clinical documents to be considered "de-identified" prior to use for research purposes. Human review of PHI elements from a large corpus of clinical documents can be tedious and error-prone. Indeed, multiple annotators may be required to consistently redact information that represents each PHI class. Automated de-identification has the potential to improve annotation quality and reduce annotation time. For instance, using machine-assisted annotation by combining de-identification system outputs used as pre-annotations and an interactive annotation interface to provide annotators with PHI annotations for "curation" rather than manual annotation from "scratch" on raw clinical documents. In order to assess whether machine-assisted annotation improves the reliability and accuracy of the reference standard quality and reduces annotation effort, we conducted an annotation experiment. In this annotation study, we assessed the generalizability of the VA Consortium for Healthcare Informatics Research (CHIR) annotation schema and guidelines applied to a corpus of publicly available clinical documents called MTSamples. Specifically, our goals were to (1) characterize a heterogeneous corpus of clinical documents manually annotated for risk-ranked PHI and other annotation types (clinical eponyms and person relations), (2) evaluate how well annotators apply the CHIR schema to the heterogeneous corpus, (3) compare whether machine-assisted annotation (experiment) improves annotation quality and reduces annotation time compared to manual annotation (control), and (4) assess the change in quality of reference standard coverage with each added annotator's annotations.

Text de-identification for privacy protection: a study of its impact on clinical text information content.

As more and more electronic clinical information is becoming easier to access for secondary uses such as clinical research, approaches that enable faster and more collaborative research while protecting patient privacy and confidentiality are becoming more important. Clinical text de-identification offers such advantages but is typically a tedious manual process. Automated Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods can alleviate this process, but their impact on subsequent uses of the automatically de-identified clinical narratives has only barely been investigated. In the context of a larger project to develop and investigate automated text de-identification for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinical notes, we studied the impact of automated text de-identification on clinical information in a stepwise manner. Our approach started with a high-level assessment of clinical notes informativeness and formatting, and ended with a detailed study of the overlap of select clinical information types and Protected Health Information (PHI). To investigate the informativeness (i.e., document type information, select clinical data types, and interpretation or conclusion) of VHA clinical notes, we used five different existing text de-identification systems. The informativeness was only minimally altered by these systems while formatting was only modified by one system. To examine the impact of de-identification on clinical information extraction, we compared counts of SNOMED-CT concepts found by an open source information extraction application in the original (i.e., not de-identified) version of a corpus of VHA clinical notes, and in the same corpus after de-identification. Only about 1.2-3% less SNOMED-CT concepts were found in de-identified versions of our corpus, and many of these concepts were PHI that was erroneously identified as clinical information. To study this impact in more details and assess how generalizable our findings were, we examined the overlap between select clinical information annotated in the 2010 i2b2 NLP challenge corpus and automatic PHI annotations from our best-of-breed VHA clinical text de-identification system (nicknamed 'BoB'). Overall, only 0.81% of the clinical information exactly overlapped with PHI, and 1.78% partly overlapped. We conclude that automated text de-identification's impact on clinical information is small, but not negligible, and that improved clinical acronyms and eponyms disambiguation could significantly reduce this impact.

Evaluating current automatic de-identification methods with Veteran's health administration clinical documents.

BACKGROUND: The increased use and adoption of Electronic Health Records (EHR) causes a tremendous growth in digital information useful for clinicians, researchers and many other operational purposes. However, this information is rich in Protected Health Information (PHI), which severely restricts its access and possible uses. A number of investigators have developed methods for automatically de-identifying EHR documents by removing PHI, as specified in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act "Safe Harbor" method.This study focuses on the evaluation of existing automated text de-identification methods and tools, as applied to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinical documents, to assess which methods perform better with each category of PHI found in our clinical notes; and when new methods are needed to improve performance. METHODS: We installed and evaluated five text de-identification systems "out-of-the-box" using a corpus of VHA clinical documents. The systems based on machine learning methods were trained with the 2006 i2b2 de-identification corpora and evaluated with our VHA corpus, and also evaluated with a ten-fold cross-validation experiment using our VHA corpus. We counted exact, partial, and fully contained matches with reference annotations, considering each PHI type separately, or only one unique 'PHI' category. Performance of the systems was assessed using recall (equivalent to sensitivity) and precision (equivalent to positive predictive value) metrics, as well as the F(2)-measure. RESULTS: Overall, systems based on rules and pattern matching achieved better recall, and precision was always better with systems based on machine learning approaches. The highest "out-of-the-box" F(2)-measure was 67% for partial matches; the best precision and recall were 95% and 78%, respectively. Finally, the ten-fold cross validation experiment allowed for an increase of the F(2)-measure to 79% with partial matches. CONCLUSIONS: The "out-of-the-box" evaluation of text de-identification systems provided us with compelling insight about the best methods for de-identification of VHA clinical documents. The errors analysis demonstrated an important need for customization to PHI formats specific to VHA documents. This study informed the planning and development of a "best-of-breed" automatic de-identification application for VHA clinical text.

How much does automatic text de-identification impact clinical problems, tests, and treatments?

Clinical text de-identification can potentially overlap with clinical information such as medical problems or treatments, therefore causing this information to be lost. In this study, we focused on the analysis of the overlap between the 2010 i2b2 NLP challenge concept annotations, with the PHI annotations of our best-of-breed clinical text de-identification application. Overall, 0.81% of the annotations overlapped exactly, and 1.78% partly overlapped.

BoB, a best-of-breed automated text de-identification system for VHA clinical documents.

OBJECTIVE: De-identification allows faster and more collaborative clinical research while protecting patient confidentiality. Clinical narrative de-identification is a tedious process that can be alleviated by automated natural language processing methods. The goal of this research is the development of an automated text de-identification system for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinical documents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We devised a novel stepwise hybrid approach designed to improve the current strategies used for text de-identification. The proposed system is based on a previous study on the best de-identification methods for VHA documents. This best-of-breed automated clinical text de-identification system (aka BoB) tackles the problem as two separate tasks: (1) maximize patient confidentiality by redacting as much protected health information (PHI) as possible; and (2) leave de-identified documents in a usable state preserving as much clinical information as possible. RESULTS: We evaluated BoB with a manually annotated corpus of a variety of VHA clinical notes, as well as with the 2006 i2b2 de-identification challenge corpus. We present evaluations at the instance- and token-level, with detailed results for BoB's main components. Moreover, an existing text de-identification system was also included in our evaluation. DISCUSSION: BoB's design efficiently takes advantage of the methods implemented in its pipeline, resulting in high sensitivity values (especially for sensitive PHI categories) and a limited number of false positives. CONCLUSIONS: Our system successfully addressed VHA clinical document de-identification, and its hybrid stepwise design demonstrates robustness and efficiency, prioritizing patient confidentiality while leaving most clinical information intact.

Generalizability and comparison of automatic clinical text de-identification methods and resources.

In this paper, we present an evaluation of the hybrid best-of-breed automated VHA (Veteran's Health Administration) clinical text de-identification system, nicknamed BoB, developed within the VHA Consortium for Healthcare Informatics Research. We also evaluate two available machine learning-based text de-identifications systems: MIST and HIDE. Two different clinical corpora were used for this evaluation: a manually annotated VHA corpus, and the 2006 i2b2 de-identification challenge corpus. These experiments focus on the generalizability and portability of the classification models across different document sources. BoB demonstrated good recall (92.6%), satisfactorily prioritizing patient privacy, and also achieved competitive precision (83.6%) for preserving subsequent document interpretability. MIST and HIDE reached very competitive results, in most cases with high precision (92.6% and 93.6%), although recall was sometimes lower than desired for the most sensitive PHI categories.