Cited by 11Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Patient Similarity Learning with Selective Forgetting

Qian, Wei, Zhao, Chenxu, Shao, Huajie, Chen, Minghan, Wang, Fei, Huai, Mengdi·2022·2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)

Abstract

Patient similarity learning aims to use patient information such as electronic medical records and genetic data as input to calculate the pairwise similarity between patients, and it is becoming increasingly important in healthcare applications. However, in many cases, patient similarity learning models also need to forget some patient data. From the perspective of privacy, patients desire a tool to erase the impacts of their sensitive data from the trained patient similarity models. From the perspective of utility, if a patient similarity model’s utility is damaged by some bad patient data, the patient similarity model needs to forget such patient data to regain utility. Although some researchers have studied the problem of machine unlearning, existing methods cannot be directly applied to patient similarity learning as they fail to consider the comparative relationships among patients. In addition, they also fail to identify the optimal conditions of the local objective functions. In this paper, we fill in this gap by studying the unlearning problem in patient similarity learning. To unlearn the knowledge of a specific patient, we propose a novel erasable patient similarity learning framework, which enjoys the provable data removal guarantee and achieves high unlearning efficiency while keeping high model utility in patient similarity learning. We also conduct extensive experiments on real-world patient disease datasets to verify the desired properties of the proposed erasable framework.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/bibm55620.2022.9995016

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The unlearning schemes proposed in References [29, 30, 33, 47, 68, 69] are essentially based on a retraining mechanism that naturally has a verifiability property.

    “The unlearning schemes proposed in References [29, 30, 33, 47, 68, 69] are essentially based on a retraining mechanism that naturally has a verifiability property.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [68]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 11

Authors
Qian, W., Zhao, C., Shao, H., Chen, M., Wang, F., & Huai, M.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CN)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Venue
2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-12-06
Pages
529-534
OpenAlex
W4313527335
Cited by
11
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
selective forgetting, machine unlearning, privacy, electronic health records, model utility

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