Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

TIDE 2.0: an open, model-agnostic engine for keyed de-identification of clinical notes

Jose D. Posada, Somalee Datta, Priya Desai

Published

Oct 5, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 5, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed. De-identification is often treated as a detection problem. Detection alone is not sufficient: redaction strips clinical content along with identifiers, date blanking destroys the temporal intervals needed for longitudinal analysis, and assigning a fresh random surrogate at each occurrence breaks links between a patient's notes. We present TIDE 2.0, an MIT-licensed engine with two separable stages: an interchangeable recognizer and a keyed anonymizer. Both run on hardware the institution owns. Surrogates are generated cryptographically with no stored linkage table. Dates shift by a per-patient, interval-preserving offset; each value receives the same surrogate across all occurrences under a given key; and a release produced under a new key cannot be linked to earlier releases. We also release TIDE2-Sentry, a recognizer distilled from a large language model. On two gold-annotated corpora from two institutions, the default configuration reached span-level recall of 0.88 in-domain and 0.77 on the second institution's corpus, at precision 0.88 and 0.87. We report recall and precision per category alongside these aggregates. The engine is open source, and the recognizer is available under a gated research-use agreement, so institutions can run, inspect and extend both within their own environments.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed."

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision, Recall, Agreement

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"On two gold-annotated corpora from two institutions, the default configuration reached span-level recall of 0.88 in-domain and 0.77 on the second institution's corpus, at precision 0.88 and 0.87."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

precisionrecallagreement
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Clinical notes capture most of what is documented about a patient's care, but they cannot be used for research until protected health information (PHI) is removed.
  • De-identification is often treated as a detection problem.
  • Detection alone is not sufficient: redaction strips clinical content along with identifiers, date blanking destroys the temporal intervals needed for longitudinal analysis, and assigning a fresh random surrogate at each occurrence breaks links between a patient's notes.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • We present TIDE 2.0, an MIT-licensed engine with two separable stages: an interchangeable recognizer and a keyed anonymizer.

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision, recall, agreement