Dataset Information

Data in the time of COVID-19: a general methodology to select and secure a NoSQL DBMS for medical data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As the COVID-19 crisis endures and the virus continues to spread globally, the need for collecting epidemiological data and patient information also grows exponentially. The race against the clock to find a cure and a vaccine to the disease means researchers require storage of increasingly large and diverse types of information; for doctors following patients, recording symptoms and reactions to treatments, the need for storage flexibility is only surpassed by the necessity of storage security. The volume, variety, and variability of COVID-19 patient data requires storage in NoSQL database management systems (DBMSs). But with a multitude of existing NoSQL DBMSs, there is no straightforward way for institutions to select the most appropriate. And more importantly, they suffer from security flaws that would render them inappropriate for the storage of confidential patient data.

Motivation

This paper develops an innovative solution to remedy the aforementioned shortcomings. COVID-19 patients, as well as medical professionals, could be subjected to privacy-related risks, from abuse of their data to community bullying regarding their medical condition. Thus, in addition to being appropriately stored and analyzed, their data must imperatively be highly protected against misuse.

Methods

This paper begins by explaining the five most popular categories of NoSQL databases. It also introduces the most popular NoSQL DBMS types related to each one of them. Moreover, this paper presents a comparative study of the different types of NoSQL DBMS, according to their strengths and weaknesses. This paper then introduces an algorithm that would assist hospitals, and medical and scientific authorities to choose the most appropriate type for storing patients' information. This paper subsequently presents a set of functions, based on web services, offering a set of endpoints that include authentication, authorization, auditing, and encryption of information. These functions are powerful and effective, making them appropriate to store all the sensitive data related to patients.

Results and contributions

This paper presents an algorithm to select the most convenient NoSQL DBMS for COVID-19 patients, medical staff, and organizations data. In addition, the paper proposes innovative security solutions that eliminate the barriers to utilizing NoSQL DBMSs to store patients' data. The proposed solutions resolve several security problems including authentication, authorization, auditing, and encryption. After implementing these security solutions, the use of NoSQL DBMSs will become a much more appropriate, safer, and affordable solution to storing and analyzing patients' data, which would contribute greatly to the medical and research effort against COVID-19. This solution can be implemented for all types of NoSQL DBMSs; implementing it would result in highly securing patients' data, and protecting them from any downsides related to data leakage.

SUBMITTER: ElDahshan KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7924412 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increased digitalization of healthcare comes along with the cost of cybercrime proliferation. This results to patients' and healthcare providers' skepticism to adopt Health Information Technologies (HIT). In Europe, this shortcoming hampers efficient cross-border health data exchange, which requires a holistic, secure and interoperable framework. This study aimed to provide the foundations for designing a secure and interoperable toolkit for cross-border health data exchange within the European Union (EU), conducted in the scope of the KONFIDO project. Particularly, we present our user requirements engineering methodology and the obtained results, driving the technical design of the KONFIDO toolkit. METHODS:Our methodology relied on four pillars: (a) a gap analysis study, reviewing a range of relevant projects/initiatives, technologies as well as cybersecurity strategies for HIT interoperability and cybersecurity; (b) the definition of user scenarios with major focus on cross-border health data exchange in the three pilot countries of the project; (c) a user requirements elicitation phase containing a threat analysis of the business processes entailed in the user scenarios, and (d) surveying and discussing with key stakeholders, aiming to validate the obtained outcomes and identify barriers and facilitators for HIT adoption linked with cybersecurity and interoperability. RESULTS:According to the gap analysis outcomes, full adherence with information security standards is currently not universally met. Sustainability plans shall be defined for adapting existing/evolving frameworks to the state-of-the-art. Overall, lack of integration in a holistic security approach was clearly identified. For each user scenario, we concluded with a comprehensive workflow, highlighting challenges and open issues for their application in our pilot sites. The threat analysis resulted in a set of 30 user goals in total, documented in detail. Finally, indicative barriers of HIT acceptance include lack of awareness regarding HIT risks and legislations, lack of a security-oriented culture and management commitment, as well as usability constraints, while important facilitators concern the adoption of standards and current efforts for a common EU legislation framework. CONCLUSIONS:Our study provides important insights to address secure and interoperable health data exchange, while our methodological framework constitutes a paradigm for investigating diverse cybersecurity-related risks in the health sector.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has yielded an unprecedented quantity of new publications, contributing to an overwhelming quantity of information and leading to the rapid dissemination of less stringently validated information. Yet, a formal analysis of how the medical literature has changed during the pandemic is lacking. In this analysis, we aimed to quantify how scientific publications changed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional bibliometric study of published studies in four high-impact medical journals to identify differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 related publications compared to non-pandemic studies. Original investigations related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 published in March and April 2020 were identified and compared to non-COVID-19 research publications over the same two-month period in 2019 and 2020. Extracted data included publication characteristics, study characteristics, author characteristics, and impact metrics. Our primary measure was principal component analysis (PCA) of publication characteristics and impact metrics across groups.ResultsWe identified 402 publications that met inclusion criteria: 76 were related to COVID-19; 154 and 172 were non-COVID publications over the same period in 2020 and 2019, respectively. PCA utilizing the collected bibliometric data revealed segregation of the COVID-19 literature subset from both groups of non-COVID literature (2019 and 2020). COVID-19 publications were more likely to describe prospective observational (31.6%) or case series (41.8%) studies without industry funding as compared with non-COVID articles, which were represented primarily by randomized controlled trials (32.5% and 36.6% in the non-COVID literature from 2020 and 2019, respectively).ConclusionsIn this cross-sectional study of publications in four general medical journals, COVID-related articles were significantly different from non-COVID articles based on article characteristics and impact metrics. COVID-related studies were generally shorter articles reporting observational studies with less literature cited and fewer study sites, suggestive of more limited scientific support. They nevertheless had much higher dissemination.

Project description:Potential therapy and confounding factors including typical co-administered medications, patient's disease states, disease prevalence, patient demographics, medical histories, and reasons for prescribing a drug often are incomplete, conflicting, missing, or uncharacterized in spontaneous adverse drug event (ADE) reporting systems. These missing or incomplete features can affect and limit the application of quantitative methods in pharmacovigilance for meta-analyses of data during randomized clinical trials. Data from patients with hypertension were retrieved and integrated from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System; 134 antihypertensive drugs out of 1131 drugs were filtered and then evaluated using the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) of the posterior distribution to build ADE-drug profiles with an emphasis on the pulmonary ADEs. Afterward, the graphical least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (GLASSO) captured drug associations based on pulmonary ADEs by correcting hidden factors and confounder misclassification. Selected drugs were then compared using the Friedman test in drug classes and clusters obtained from GLASSO. Following multiple filtering stages to exclude insignificant and noise-driven reports, we found that drugs from antihypertensives agents, urologicals, and antithrombotic agents (macitentan, bosentan, epoprostenol, selexipag, sildenafil, tadalafil, and beraprost) form a similar class with a significantly higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs. Macitentan and bosentan were associated with 64% and 56% of pulmonary ADEs, respectively. Because these two medications are prescribed in diseases affecting pulmonary function and may be likely to emerge among the highest reported pulmonary ADEs, in fact, they serve to validate the methods utilized here. Conversely, doxazosin and rilmenidine were found to have the least pulmonary ADEs in selected drugs from hypertension patients. Nifedipine and candesartan were also found by signal detection methods to form a drug cluster, shown by several studies an effective combination of these drugs on lowering blood pressure and appeared an improved side effect profile in comparison with single-agent monotherapy. We consider pulmonary ADE profiles in multiple long-standing groups of therapeutics including antihypertensive agents, antithrombotic agents, beta-blocking agents, calcium channel blockers, or agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system, in patients with hypertension associated with high risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We found that several individual drugs have significant differences between their drug classes and compared to other drug classes. For instance, macitentan and bosentan from endothelin receptor antagonists show major concern while doxazosin and rilmenidine exhibited the least pulmonary ADEs compared to the outcomes of other drugs. Using techniques in this study, we assessed and confirmed the hypothesis that drugs from the same drug class could have very different pulmonary ADE profiles affecting outcomes in acute respiratory illness. GJW and MJD accepted funding from BioNexus KC for funding on this project, but BioNexus KC had no direct role in this article.