↓ Skip to main content

Detecting inappropriate access to electronic health records using collaborative filtering

Overview of attention for article published in Machine Learning, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
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
Detecting inappropriate access to electronic health records using collaborative filtering
Published in
Machine Learning, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10994-013-5376-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aditya Krishna Menon, Xiaoqian Jiang, Jihoon Kim, Jaideep Vaidya, Lucila Ohno-Machado

Abstract

Many healthcare facilities enforce security on their electronic health records (EHRs) through a corrective mechanism: some staff nominally have almost unrestricted access to the records, but there is a strict ex post facto audit process for inappropriate accesses, i.e., accesses that violate the facility's security and privacy policies. This process is inefficient, as each suspicious access has to be reviewed by a security expert, and is purely retrospective, as it occurs after damage may have been incurred. This motivates automated approaches based on machine learning using historical data. Previous attempts at such a system have successfully applied supervised learning models to this end, such as SVMs and logistic regression. While providing benefits over manual auditing, these approaches ignore the identity of the users and patients involved in a record access. Therefore, they cannot exploit the fact that a patient whose record was previously involved in a violation has an increased risk of being involved in a future violation. Motivated by this, in this paper, we propose a collaborative filtering inspired approach to predicting inappropriate accesses. Our solution integrates both explicit and latent features for staff and patients, the latter acting as a personalized "finger-print" based on historical access patterns. The proposed method, when applied to real EHR access data from two tertiary hospitals and a file-access dataset from Amazon, shows not only significantly improved performance compared to existing methods, but also provides insights as to what indicates an inappropriate access.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 33 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Engineering 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 April 2014.
All research outputs
#18,370,767
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Machine Learning
#872
of 954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,907
of 195,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Machine Learning
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 954 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 195,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.