Cited by 283Cryptography and Data SecurityCloud Data Security SolutionsPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Private predictive analysis on encrypted medical data

Open access
Bos, Joppe W., Lauter, Kristin, Naehrig, Michael·2014·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Increasingly, confidential medical records are being stored in data centers hosted by hospitals or large companies. As sophisticated algorithms for predictive analysis on medical data continue to be developed, it is likely that, in the future, more and more computation will be done on private patient data. While encryption provides a tool for assuring the privacy of medical information, it limits the functionality for operating on such data. Conventional encryption methods used today provide only very restricted possibilities or none at all to operate on encrypted data without decrypting it first. Homomorphic encryption provides a tool for handling such computations on encrypted data, without decrypting the data, and without even needing the decryption key. In this paper, we discuss possible application scenarios for homomorphic encryption in order to ensure privacy of sensitive medical data. We describe how to privately conduct predictive analysis tasks on encrypted data using homomorphic encryption. As a proof of concept, we present a working implementation of a prediction service running in the cloud (hosted on Microsoft's Windows Azure), which takes as input private encrypted health data, and returns the probability for suffering cardiovascular disease in encrypted form. Since the cloud service uses homomorphic encryption, it makes this prediction while handling only encrypted data, learning nothing about the submitted confidential medical data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.04.003

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chen, 2011, BKZ 20: better lattice security estimates, vol. 7073, 1
  2. Erlich Y, Lauter K, Wilbanks J. Encrypting genetic data for smarter sharing. AAAS 2014 annual meeting press briefings. <http://new.livestream.com/AAASmtg/Sunday> (minutes 12:52–16:20); 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–283 of 283

Metadata

Authors
Bos, J. W., Lauter, K., & Naehrig, M.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Lauter, Kristin
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
50
Pages
234-243
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077905990
Cited by
283
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 4
FWCI
28.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
homomorphic encryption, cardiovascular disease prediction, health data privacy, Microsoft Azure
MeSH terms
Proportional Hazards Models, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Computer Security, Privacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review