mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Which anonymization technique is best for which NLP task? -- It depends. A Systematic Study on Clinical Text Processing

arXiv 2209.00262 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2022cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Clinical text processing has gained more and more attention in recent years. The access to sensitive patient data, on the other hand, is still a big challenge, as text cannot be shared without legal hurdles and without removing personal information. There are many techniques to modify or remove patient related information, each with different strengths. This paper investigates the influence of different anonymization techniques on the performance of ML models using multiple datasets corresponding to five different NLP tasks. Several learnings and recommendations are presented. This work confirms that particularly stronger anonymization techniques lead to a significant drop of performance. In addition to that, most of the presented techniques are not secure against a re-identification attack based on similarity search.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2022.

Builds on

4 of 34 references.

References · 4

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddingscited by 995
  3. 2019Phenotyping of Clinical Notes with Improved Document Classification Models Using Contextualized Neural Language Modelscited by 20
  4. 2020Closing the Gap: Joint De-Identification and Concept Extraction in the Clinical Domaincited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.