An evaluation of existing text de-identification tools for use with patient progress notes from Australian general practice.

INTRODUCTION

Digitized patient progress notes from general practice represent a significant resource for clinical and public health research but cannot feasibly and ethically be used for these purposes without automated de-identification. Internationally, several open-source natural language processing tools have been developed, however, given wide variations in clinical documentation practices, these cannot be utilized without appropriate review. We evaluated the performance of four de-identification tools and assessed their suitability for customization to Australian general practice progress notes.

METHODS

Four tools were selected: three rule-based (HMS Scrubber, MIT De-id, Philter) and one machine learning (MIST). 300 patient progress notes from three general practice clinics were manually annotated with personally identifying information. We conducted a pairwise comparison between the manual annotations and patient identifiers automatically detected by each tool, measuring recall (sensitivity), precision (positive predictive value), f1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall), and f2-score (weighs recall 2x higher than precision). Error analysis was also conducted to better understand each tool's structure and performance.

RESULTS

Manual annotation detected 701 identifiers in seven categories. The rule-based tools detected identifiers in six categories and MIST in three. Philter achieved the highest aggregate recall (67%) and the highest recall for NAME (87%). HMS Scrubber achieved the highest recall for DATE (94%) and all tools performed poorly on LOCATION. MIST achieved the highest precision for NAME and DATE while also achieving similar recall to the rule-based tools for DATE and highest recall for LOCATION. Philter had the lowest aggregate precision (37%), however preliminary adjustments of its rules and dictionaries showed a substantial reduction in false positives.

CONCLUSION

Existing off-the-shelf solutions for automated de-identification of clinical text are not immediately suitable for our context without modification. Philter is the most promising candidate due to its high recall and flexibility however will require extensive revising of its pattern matching rules and dictionaries.