Differentially Private De-identification of Dutch Clinical Notes: A Comparative Evaluation
arXiv SecurityArchived Apr 24, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2604.21421v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Protecting patient privacy in clinical narratives is essential for enabling secondary use of healthcare data under regulations such as GDPR and HIPAA. While manual de-identification remains the gold standard, it is costly and slow, motivating the need for automated methods that combine privacy guarantees with high utility. Most automated text de-identification pipelines employed named entity recognition (NER) to identify protected entities for reda
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 23 Apr 2026]
Differentially Private De-identification of Dutch Clinical Notes: A Comparative Evaluation
Michele Miranda, Xinlan Yan, Nishant Mishra, Rachel Murphy, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Sébastien Bratières, Iacer Calixto
Protecting patient privacy in clinical narratives is essential for enabling secondary use of healthcare data under regulations such as GDPR and HIPAA. While manual de-identification remains the gold standard, it is costly and slow, motivating the need for automated methods that combine privacy guarantees with high utility. Most automated text de-identification pipelines employed named entity recognition (NER) to identify protected entities for redaction. Although methods based on differential privacy (DP) provide formal privacy guarantees, more recently also large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for text de-identification in the clinical domain. In this work, we present the first comparative study of DP, NER, and LLMs for Dutch clinical text de-identification. We investigate these methods separately as well as hybrid strategies that apply NER or LLM preprocessing prior to DP, and assess performance in terms of privacy leakage and extrinsic evaluation (entity and relation classification). We show that DP mechanisms alone degrade utility substantially, but combining them with linguistic preprocessing, especially LLM-based redaction, significantly improves the privacy-utility trade-off.
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.21421 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2604.21421v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.21421
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Michele Miranda [view email]
[v1] Thu, 23 Apr 2026 08:37:40 UTC (9,923 KB)
Access Paper:
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-04
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)