Social highlighters let people mark passages that matter to them. We ask how much of an individual is recoverable from these naturalistic traces, using a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users) that holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does. We separate generic salience (structure), crowd salience (what others marked), and personal salience (the individual residual). First, highlighting is social: which sentences you mark is predicted far better by the crowd than by structure or by a personal model, and even a well-estimated crowd, an information-privileged baseline that sees others' marks on the same document, beats a frontier LLM twin built from your other-document history; the within-document personal signal is at most a whisper (own-vs-other gap +0.017 by an embedding scorer, small but significant). Second, in sharp contrast, individuality lives in selection: asked which of the already-salient passages are yours, your own history is a strong, leakage-free predictor (gap +0.14). A topic decomposition shows this is largely stable thematic preference: it shrinks ~6-8x against a topically-matched peer, and a thin residual cannot be separated from finer topic. The non-obvious part is an asymmetry: under the same scorer the individual signal is ~6-8x weaker in salience than in selection. Methodologically, naive history-conditioning evaluations leak (the target's own marks enter the profile in ~42% of pairs, inflating personal scores by up to +0.15 AP) and small crowds overstate personalization; our results are leakage-free, use a dense crowd, and a model-matched control. Highlights carry a genuine individual signature, but a thin layer over a strong shared one, surfacing far more in which salient things a person selects than in what is salient.
Electronic health record (EHR) notes are dense medical documents containing large amounts of information, often filled with complex medical jargon. Highlighting all details in EHRs helps reduce the likelihood of missing crucial information by drawing attention to key content. This study proposes the design of a Cardiology Interface Terminology (CIT) to accurately highlight all details in EHR notes of cardiology patients. We introduce an innovative Machine Learning (ML) technique for the design of CIT. The ML technique requires training data. Manual preparation of such training data is time-consuming and expensive. The process of the CIT design includes three phases. In the first two phases, we innovatively derive a training data CIT to be used by the third phase, ML technique. We start by designing an initial CIT, composed of several components: the cardiology-related sub-hierarchies of SNOMED, other SNOMED concepts mined from EHRs of build set, and necessary components of terms e.g., medical abbreviations and medications. Utilizing an iterative process, fine-grained phrases containing initial CIT concepts are extracted from build set as CIT concept candidates. The candidate concepts are semi-automatically reviewed before being added to CIT, yielding the training data CIT, TCIT. In the third phase, a ML model is trained with TCIT to identify candidates fitting to be concepts in the CIT. This model is used to extract further concepts from build set, yielding the final CIT. The final CIT is then used to highlight the test set and evaluate the extent to which it captures details in an unseen EHR dataset. For this purpose, four evaluation metrics, coverage, breadth, completeness, and conciseness are used. The highlighted test set has a coverage of 74.21%, with a breadth of 1.68. For 20 random notes in test set, the average completeness is 98.2% and average conciseness is 84.2%.