Masking Is Not Enough: Generative Restoration for Multimodal De-Identification in Medical AI

Medical image-text data can expose protected health information (PHI) through both visible image content as well as accompanying text, creating a barrier to privacy-preserving medical AI systems. This risk is especially prominent in multimodal systems, where images, questions, reports, and clinical context may enter training, evaluation, or inference pipelines. Existing medical vision-language benchmarks primarily emphasize task utility, while de-identification methods are often evaluated separately from downstream reasoning. We introduce ClinX, an end-to-end multimodal PHI sanitization framework for medical image-text data. ClinX detects visible identifiers with optical character recognition (OCR), constructs binary PHI masks, and applies ClinX-PRISM, a no-skip generative restoration module with privacy-oriented post-processing for burned-in identifier suppression. In parallel, text-side PHI is reduced through progressive de-identification levels: regex masking, context-aware masking, and rewrite-based sanitization. We evaluate ClinX in medical visual question answering (MedVQA), jointly measuring PHI leakage and downstream utility across image-side, text-side, and combined de-identification settings. Results show that OCR-only masking is not sufficient as a standalone solution, and restoration-based sanitization better preserves clinically relevant visual context while sharply reducing recoverable PHI.

Institution-Specific LLM Prompting Recovers PHI That De-identification Systems and Their Gold Standards Both Miss

Secondary use of electronic health records requires de-identification, yet existing systems miss \emph{institutionally situated} protected health information (PHI) such as hospital abbreviations, building names, and internal codes whose status is locally determined. We ask whether large language models (LLMs) with in-context learning (ICL) can close this gap and control the precision--recall trade-off. On 100 annotated pediatric oncology notes (5,322 PHI spans) from Texas Children's Hospital, we benchmarked eight LLMs against two purpose-built systems (Stanford TiDE, OpenMed PII) and two pattern-based baselines. Each LLM ran under three prompts of increasing specificity: (1) a HIPAA-aligned baseline, (2) baseline plus the institutional PHI categories it missed, and (3) prompt 2 plus instructions against over-redacting clinical content. We then compared 14~multi-agent and ensemble configurations against the best single prompt, with recall the primary safety metric. LLMs outperformed the purpose-built systems (best F1=0.918$\pm$0.001 vs.\ TiDE 0.779), with advantages concentrated in contextual categories. Naming the missed categories recovered 79\% (48/61) of them, and discouraging over-redaction restored precision. No agentic architecture beat calibrated single-pass prompting (F1 0.906--0.907), but LLM outputs surfaced 414~candidate annotation gaps; re-annotation confirmed 227~PHI spans, against which the final prompt reached recall=0.981 (F1=0.907$\pm$0.002). Well-calibrated ICL resolves both the institutional PHI gap and the precision--recall trade-off in one LLM call per note. LLMs cost more to run than traditional methods, but that cost buys a way to audit the reference standard. LLMs are a legitimate, adaptable alternative to purpose-built de-identification systems; institution-specific prompt development should be the primary adaptation strategy.

Surrogate Substitution Preserves PHI Detectability: A Multi-Detector Equivalence Study

Structure-preserving de-identification replaces protected health information (PHI) with realistic same-type surrogates -- "Anna S." becomes "Maria S.", not [NAME] -- so that clinical text stays fluent and downstream tools keep working. But this only helps if the substitution does not itself corrupt the signal those tools rely on. We ask a narrow, testable question: on the spans a de-identifier actually masks, can downstream PHI detectors still find the surrogate? We introduce a paired, multi-detector evaluation protocol that (i) scores utility only on masked spans, decoupling coverage from utility; (ii) uses equivalence testing (TOST) rather than null-hypothesis significance testing, which is uninformative at our sample size (57k paired spans); and (iii) builds a surrogate-failure typology separating fixable generator defects from intrinsic detector limits. Across 11 detectors, 7 benchmarks, and 7 languages (1,750 documents), recall on masked spans moves from 76.1% to 74.9% -- a change our equivalence test shows is statistically equivalent to zero within a +/-2-point margin (p ~ 3e-9), with detector ranking preserved. The residual loss does not reflect detectors getting worse at PHI: it concentrates in malformed and out-of-distribution surrogates (truncation Chicago -> Illino, salience loss Cedars-Sinai -> Vidant). A redaction floor and an open-source surrogate baseline indicate the effect is a property of well-formed substitution, not of one tool. We release the evaluation subsets, scoring code, and an interactive dashboard at https://custodianai.pages.dev so the protocol can audit any structure-preserving transform.