Model Utility in Health Data Repositories under Privacy Budgets and Context Awareness

Authors

  • Mia James Department of Computer and Information Science, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Author

Keywords:

Privacy Budget, Model Utility, Context Awareness, Health Informatics, Differential Privacy

Abstract

The rapid digitization of medical records and the widespread deployment of health data repositories have created unprecedented opportunities for advancing medical research, public health surveillance, and personalized medicine. However, the utilization of these highly sensitive datasets introduces profound privacy concerns. Differential privacy has emerged as a gold standard for quantifying and bounding privacy risks, primarily governed by the allocation of a privacy budget. A critical challenge remains the inherent trade-off between the stringency of the privacy budget and the downstream utility of machine learning models trained on the sanitized data. This paper provides a comprehensive academic analysis of how model utility can be systematically explained, preserved, and optimized by integrating context awareness into the privacy budget allocation process. We propose a theoretical framework wherein privacy parameters are dynamically adjusted based on the contextual sensitivity of the data, the specific characteristics of the medical inquiry, and the anticipated operational environment of the predictive models. Through extensive discussion of simulation designs and resulting utility metrics, we demonstrate that context-aware privacy budget management mitigates the severe performance degradation typically associated with strict, uniform privacy guarantees. The findings suggest that adopting domain-specific, contextually intelligent data sanitization strategies significantly enhances predictive accuracy without compromising the fundamental privacy rights of individuals represented in health repositories.

References

1. Li, T.; Xia, A.; McLaren, T.I.; Pandey, R.; Xu, Z.; Liu, H.; Manning, S.; Madgett, O.; Duncan, S.; Rasmussen, P.; et al. Preliminary Results in Innovative Solutions for Soil Carbon Estimation: Integrating Remote Sensing, Machine Learning, and Proximal Sensing Spectroscopy. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 5571.

2. Batjes, N.H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1996, 47, 151–163.

3. Gomez, C.; Chevallier, T.; Moulin, P.; Bouferra, I.; Hmaidi, K.; Arrouays, D.; Jolivet, C.; Barthès, B.G. Prediction of soil organic and inorganic carbon concentrations in Tunisian samples by mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy using a French national library. Geoderma 2020, 375, 114469.

4. Chen, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X. Soil organic carbon estimation using remote sensing data-driven machine learning. PeerJ 2024, 12, e17836.

5. Abrar, M.M.; Waqas, M.A.; Mehmood, K.; Fan, R.; Memon, M.S.; Khan, M.A.; Siddique, N.; Xu, M.; Du, J. Organic carbon sequestration in global croplands: Evidenced through a bibliometric approach. Front. Environ. Sci. 2025, 13, 1495991.

6. Hutengs, C.; Eisenhauer, N.; Schädler, M.; Cesarz, S.; Lochner, A.; Seidel, M.; Vohland, M. Enhanced VNIR and MIR proximal sensing of soil organic matter and PLFA-derived soil microbial properties through machine learning ensembles and external parameter orthogonalization. Geoderma 2024, 450, 117037.

7. König, A.; Wiesenbauer, J.; Gorka, S.; Marchand, L.; Kitzler, B.; Inselsbacher, E.; Kaiser, C. Reverse microdialysis: A window into root exudation hotspots. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 174, 108829.

8. Zhou, Z.; Ren, C.; Wang, C.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Luo, Y.; Luo, Z.; Du, Z.; Zhu, B.; Yang, Y.; Jiao, S.; et al. Global turnover of soil mineral-associated and particulate organic carbon. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 5329.

9. Patton, N.R.; Lohse, K.A.; Seyfried, M.S.; Godsey, S.; Parsons, S.B. Topographic controls of soil organic carbon on soil-mantled landscapes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 6390.

10. Matus, F.J.; Escudey, M.; Förster, J.E.; Gutiérrez, M.; Chang, A.C. Is the Walkley–Black Method Suitable for Organic Carbon Determination in Chilean Volcanic Soils? Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2009, 40, 1862–1872.

11. Viscarra Rossel, R.A.; Behrens, T.; Ben-Dor, E.; Brown, D.J.; Demattê, J.A.M.; Shepherd, K.D.; Shi, Z.; Stenberg, B.; Stevens, A.; Adamchuk, V.; et al. A global spectral library to characterize the world’s soil. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 155, 198–230.

12. Lin, Z.; Dai, Y.; Mishra, U.; Wang, G.; Shangguan, W.; Zhang, W.; Qin, Z. Global and regional soil organic carbon estimates: Magnitude and uncertainties. Pedosphere 2023, 34, 685–698.

13. Rickman, J.M.; Lookman, T.; Kalinin, S.V. Materials Informatics: From the Atomic-Level to the Continuum. Acta Mater. 2019, 168, 473–510.

14. Lookman, T.; Liu, Y.; Gao, Z. Materials Informatics: Emergence to Autonomous Discovery in the Age of AI. Adv. Mater. 2026, 38, e15941.

15. Pilania, G.; Gubernatis, J.E.; Lookman, T. Multi-Fidelity Machine Learning Models for Accurate Bandgap Predictions of Solids. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2017, 129, 156–163.

16. Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Pei, Z. Machine Learning for High-Entropy Alloys: Progress, Challenges and Opportunities. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2023, 131, 101018.

17. Kim, C.; Chandrasekaran, A.; Huan, T.D.; Das, D.; Ramprasad, R. Polymer Genome: A Data-Powered Polymer Informatics Platform for Property Predictions. J. Phys. Chem. C Nanomater. Interfaces 2018, 122, 17575–17585.

18. Habib, S.; Tahir, F.; Hussain, F.; Macauley, N.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Current and emerging technologies for carbon accounting in urban landscapes: Advantages and limitations. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110603.

19. Pallasser, R.; Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. Soil carbon determination by thermogravimetrics. PeerJ 2013, 1, e6.

20. Salehi, M.H.; Beni, O.H.; Harchegani, H.B.; Borujeni, I.E.; Motaghian, H.R. Refining Soil Organic Matter Determination by Loss-on-Ignition. Pedosphere 2011, 21, 473–482.

21. Schulte, E.E.; Hopkins, B.G. Estimation of Soil Organic Matter by Weight Loss-On-Ignition. In Soil Organic Matter: Analysis and Interpretation; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2015; pp. 21–31.

22. Margenot, A.J.; Parikh, S.J.; Calderón, F.J. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for soil organic matter analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2023, 87, 1503–1528.

23. Walden, L.; Sepanta, F.; Viscarra Rossel, R.A. FT-MIR Spectroscopic Analysis of the Organic Carbon Fractions in Australian Mineral Soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2025, 76, e70084.

24. Wold, S.; Sjöström, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 109–130.

25. Natekin, A.; Knoll, A. Gradient boosting machines, a tutorial. Front. Neurorobot. 2013, 7, 21.

26. Valavi, R.; Elith, J.; Lahoz-Monfort, J.J.; Guillera-Arroita, G. Modelling species presence-only data with random forests. Ecography 2021, 44, 1731–1742.

27. Adin, A.; Krainski, E.T.; Lenzi, A.; Liu, Z.; Martínez-Minaya, J.; Rue, H. Automatic Cross-Validation in Structured Models: Is It Time to Leave out Leave-One-Out? Spat. Stat. 2024, 62, 100843.

28. Kebonye, N.M.; John, K.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Zhou, Y.; Agyeman, P.C.; Seletlo, Z.; Heung, B.; Scholten, T. Major overlap in plant and soil organic carbon hotspots across Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 951, 175476.

29. Shepherd, K.D.; Walsh, M.G. Development of Reflectance Spectral Libraries for Characterization of Soil Properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 988–998.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-18

Issue

Section

Articles