NAPLPS

NAPLPS (North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax) is a graphics language for use originally with videotex and teletext services. NAPLPS was developed from the Telidon system developed in Canada, with a small number of additions from AT&T Corporation. The basics of NAPLPS were later used as the basis for several other microcomputer-based graphics systems. == History == The Canadian Communications Research Centre (CRC), based in Ottawa, had been working on various graphics systems since the late 1960s, much of it led by Herb Bown. Through the 1970s they turned their attention to building out a system of "picture description instructions", which encoded graphics commands as a text stream. Graphics were encoded as a series of instructions (graphics primitives) each represented by a single ASCII character. Graphic coordinates were encoded in multiple 6-bit strings of XY coordinate data, flagged to place them in the printable ASCII range so that they could be transmitted with conventional text transmission techniques. ASCII SI/SO characters were used to differentiate the text from graphic portions of a transmitted "page". These instructions were decoded by separate programs to produce graphics output, on a plotter for instance. Other work produced a fully interactive version. In 1975, the CRC gave a contract to Norpak to develop an interactive graphics terminal that could decode the instructions and display them on a color display. During this period, a number of companies were developing the first teletext systems, notably the BBC's Ceefax system. Ceefax encoded character data into the lines in the vertical blanking interval of normal television signals where they could not be seen on-screen, and then used a buffer and decoder in the user's television to convert these into "pages" of text on the display. The Independent Broadcasting Authority quickly introduced their own ORACLE system, and the two organizations subsequently agreed to use a single standard, the "Broadcast Teletext Specification". This later became World System Teletext. At about the same time, other organizations were developing videotex systems, similar to teletext except they used modems to transmit their data instead of television signals. This was potentially slower and used up a telephone line, but had the major advantage of allowing the user to transmit data back to the sender. The UK's General Post Office developed a system using the Ceefax/ORACLE standard, launching it as Prestel, while France prepared the first steps for its ultimately very successful Minitel system, using a rival display standard called Antiope. By 1977, the Norpak system was running, and from this work the CRC decided to create their own teletext/videotext system. Unlike the systems being rolled out in Europe, the CRC decided from the start that the system should be able to run on any combination of communications links. For instance, it could use the vertical blanking interval to send data to the user, and a modem to return selections to the servers. It could be used in a one-way or two-way system. In teletext mode, character codes were sent to users' televisions by encoding them as dot patterns in the vertical blanking interval of the video signal. Various technical "tweaks" and details of the NTSC signals used by North American televisions allowed the downstream videotex channel to increase to 600 bit/s, about twice that used in the European systems. In videotext mode, Bell 202 modems were typical, offering a 1,200 bit/s download rate. A set top box attached to the TV decoded these signals back into text and graphics pages, which the user could select among. The system was publicly launched as Telidon on August 15, 1978. Compared to the European standards, the CRC system was faster, bi-directional, and offered real graphics as opposed to simple character graphics. The downside of the system was that it required much more advanced decoders, typically featuring Zilog Z80 or Motorola 6809 processors with RGB and/or RF output. The Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (then Department of Communications) launched a four-year plan to fund public roll-outs of the technology in an effort to spur the development of a commercial Telidon system. AT&T Corporation was so impressed by Telidon that they decided to join the project. They added a number of useful extensions, notably the ability to define original graphics commands (macro) and character sets (DRCS). They also tabled algorithms for proportionally spaced text, which greatly improved the quality of the displayed pages. A joint CSA/ANSI working group (X3L2.1) revised the specifications, which were submitted for standardization. In 1983, they became CSA T500 and ANSI X3.110, or NAPLPS. The data encoding system was also standardized as the NABTS (North American Broadcast Teletext Specification) protocol. Business models for Telidon services were poorly developed. Unlike the UK, where teletext was supported by one of only two large companies whose whole revenue model was based on a read-only medium (television), in North America Telidon was being offered by companies who worked on a subscriber basis. == One-way systems == Telidon-based teletext was tested in a few North American trials in the early 1980s — CBC IRIS, TVOntario, MTS-sponsored Project IDA, to name a few. NAPLPS was also part of the NABTS teletext standard, for the encoding and display of teletext pages. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, affiliates of the regional sports network group SportsChannel ran a service called Sports Plus Network, which ran sports news and scores while SportsChannel was not otherwise on the air. The screens, which frequently featured team logos or likenesses of players in addition to text, were drawn entirely with NAPLPS graphics and resembled the loading of Prodigy pages over a modem, though slightly faster. == Two-way systems == Various two-way systems using NAPLPS appeared in North America in the early 1980s. The biggest North American examples were Knight Ridder's Viewtron (based in Miami) and the Los Angeles Times' Gateway service (based in Orange County). Both used the Sceptre NAPLPS terminal from AT&T. The Sceptre contained a slow modem that connected over the consumer's telephone line to host computers. The Sceptre was expensive whether purchased or rented. Despite huge investments by their parent companies, neither Viewtron nor Gateway lasted into the second half of the decade. Another system, Keyfax, was developed by Keycom Electronic Publishing, a joint venture of Honeywell, Centel (since acquired by Sprint) and Field Enterprises, then-owner of the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. Keyfax had originally been a WST teletext service, broadcast overnights on Field's Chicago television station WFLD-32 and through the VBI of both WFLD and national superstation WTBS; the decision was made to convert Keyfax into a subscription service, using a proprietary NAPLPS terminal device in a last-ditch effort to save the service. It did not work and Keyfax had ceased operations by the end of 1986. Other early-1980s NAPLPS technology was deployed in Canada, both as a way for rural Canadians to get news and weather information and as the platform for touchscreen information kiosks. In Vancouver these were featured at Expo 86. The kiosks became ubiquitous in Toronto under the name Teleguide, and were deployed in many shopping centres and at major tourist attractions. The latter city was the North American nexus of NAPLPS and the home of Norpak, the most successful of NAPLPS-oriented developers. Norpak created and sold hardware and software for NAPLPS development and display. TVOntario also developed NAPLPS content creation software. London, Ontario - based Cableshare used NAPLPS as the basis of touch-screen information kiosks for shopping malls, the flagship of which was deployed at Toronto's Eaton Centre. The system relied on an 8085-based microcomputer which drove several NAPLPS terminals fitted with touch screens, all communicating via Datapac to a back end database. The system offered news, weather and sports information along with shopping mall guides and coupons. Cableshare also developed and sold a leading NAPLPS page creation utility called the "Picture Painter." In the late 1980s, Tribune Media Services (TMS) and the Associated Press operated a cable television channel called AP News Plus that provided NAPLPS-based news screens to cable television subscribers in many U.S. cities. The news pages were created and edited by TMS staffers working on an Atex editing system in Orlando, Florida, and sent by satellite to NAPLPS decoder devices located at the local cable television companies. Among the firms providing technology to TMS and the Associated Press for the AP News Plus channel was Minneapolis-based Electronic Publishers Inc. (1985–1988). In 1981, two amateur radio operators (VE3FTT and VE3GQW) received special permission from the Canad

Telebirr

Telebirr (Amharic: ቴሌብር) is a mobile payment service developed and was launched by Ethio telecom, the state owned telecommunication and Internet service provider in Ethiopia. It took five months to develop the end-to-end service. It facilitates the delivery of cashless transactions. The platform deployed currently has the capacity of processing up to 100 transactions per second (TPS) and can be scaled up to 1000 TPS. The service is accessible via SMS, USSD, and smartphone applications. Telebirr works in five languages. == Services == Though the service is fully accessible for any customer of Ethio telecom, the users need to register through the mobile application called Telebirr or using an authorized agent or Ethio telecom shop or Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD), 127# nationally. However, Telebirr also provides a “quick registration” by using any information that already exists in Ethio telecom's system.

Pythia (machine learning)

Pythia is an ancient text restoration model that recovers missing characters from damaged text input using deep neural networks. It was created by Yannis Assael, Thea Sommerschield, and Jonathan Prag, researchers from Google DeepMind and the University of Oxford. To study the society and the history of ancient civilisations, ancient history relies on disciplines such as epigraphy, the study of ancient inscribed texts. Hundreds of thousands of these texts, known as inscriptions, have survived to our day, but are often damaged over the centuries. Illegible parts of the text must then be restored by specialists, called epigraphists, in order to extract meaningful information from the text and use it to expand our knowledge of the context in which the text was written. Pythia takes as input the damaged text, and is trained to return hypothesised restorations of ancient Greek inscriptions, working as an assistive aid for ancient historians. Its neural network architecture works at both the character- and word-level, thereby effectively handling long-term context information, and dealing efficiently with incomplete word representations. Pythia is applicable to any discipline dealing with ancient texts (philology, papyrology, codicology) and can work in any language (ancient or modern).

Psychology of reasoning

The psychology of reasoning (also known as the cognitive science of reasoning) is the study of how people reason, often broadly defined as the process of drawing conclusions to inform how people solve problems and make decisions. It overlaps with psychology, philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, logic, and probability theory. Psychological experiments on how humans and other animals reason have been carried out for over 100 years. An enduring question is whether or not people have the capacity to be rational. Current research in this area addresses various questions about reasoning, rationality, judgments, intelligence, relationships between emotion and reasoning, and development. == Everyday reasoning == One of the most obvious areas in which people employ reasoning is with sentences in everyday language. Most experimentation on deduction has been carried out on hypothetical thought, in particular, examining how people reason about conditionals, e.g., If A then B. Participants in experiments make the modus ponens inference, given the indicative conditional If A then B, and given the premise A, they conclude B. However, given the indicative conditional and the minor premise for the modus tollens inference, not-B, about half of the participants in experiments conclude not-A and the remainder concludes that nothing follows. The ease with which people make conditional inferences is affected by context, as demonstrated in the well-known selection task developed by Peter Wason. Participants are better able to test a conditional in an ecologically relevant context, e.g., if the envelope is sealed then it must have a 50 cent stamp on it compared to one that contains symbolic content, e.g., if the letter is a vowel then the number is even. Background knowledge can also lead to the suppression of even the simple modus ponens inference Participants given the conditional if Lisa has an essay to write then she studies late in the library and the premise Lisa has an essay to write make the modus ponens inference 'she studies late in the library', but the inference is suppressed when they are also given a second conditional if the library stays open then she studies late in the library. Interpretations of the suppression effect are controversial Other investigations of propositional inference examine how people think about disjunctive alternatives, e.g., A or else B, and how they reason about negation, e.g., It is not the case that A and B. Many experiments have been carried out to examine how people make relational inferences, including comparisons, e.g., A is better than B. Such investigations also concern spatial inferences, e.g. A is in front of B and temporal inferences, e.g. A occurs before B. Other common tasks include categorical syllogisms, used to examine how people reason about quantifiers such as All or Some, e.g., Some of the A are not B. For example if all A are B and some B are C, what (if anything) follows? == Theories of reasoning == There are several alternative theories of the cognitive processes that human reasoning is based on. One view is that people rely on a mental logic consisting of formal (abstract or syntactic) inference rules similar to those developed by logicians in the propositional calculus. Another view is that people rely on domain-specific or content-sensitive rules of inference. A third view is that people rely on mental models, that is, mental representations that correspond to imagined possibilities. A fourth view is that people compute probabilities. One controversial theoretical issue is the identification of an appropriate competence model, or a standard against which to compare human reasoning. Initially classical logic was chosen as a competence model. Subsequently, some researchers opted for non-monotonic logic and Bayesian probability. Research on mental models and reasoning has led to the suggestion that people are rational in principle but err in practice. Connectionist approaches towards reasoning have also been proposed. Despite the ongoing debate about the cognitive processes involved in human reasoning, recent research has shown that multiple approaches can be useful in modeling human thinking. For instance, studies have found that people's reasoning is often influenced by their prior beliefs, which can be modeled using Bayesian probability theory. Additionally, research on mental models has shown that people tend to reason about problems by constructing multiple mental representations of the situation, which can help them to identify relevant features and make inferences based on their understanding of the problem. Moreover, connectionist approaches to reasoning have also gained attention, which focus on the neural network models that can learn from data and generalize to new situations. == Development of reasoning == It is an active question in psychology how, why, and when the ability to reason develops from infancy to adulthood. Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development posited general mechanisms and stages in the development of reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, changes in reasoning with development come from increasing working memory capacity, increasing speed of processing, and enhanced executive functions and control. Increasing self-awareness is also an important factor. In their book The Enigma of Reason, the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber put forward an "argumentative" theory of reasoning, claiming that humans evolved to reason primarily to justify our beliefs and actions and to convince others in a social environment. Key evidence for their theory includes the errors in reasoning that solitary individuals are prone to when their arguments are not criticized, such as logical fallacies, and how groups become much better at performing cognitive reasoning tasks when they communicate with one another and can evaluate each other's arguments. Sperber and Mercier offer one attempt to resolve the apparent paradox that the confirmation bias is so strong despite the function of reasoning naively appearing to be to come to veridical conclusions about the world. The study of the development of reasoning abilities is an ongoing area of research in psychology, and multiple factors have been proposed to explain how, why, and when reasoning develops from infancy to adulthood. Recent research has suggested that early experiences and social interactions play a critical role in the development of reasoning abilities. For example, studies have shown that infants as young as six months old can engage in basic logical reasoning, such as reasoning about the relationship between objects and their properties. Furthermore, research has highlighted the importance of parental interaction and cognitive stimulation in the development of children's reasoning abilities. Additionally, studies have suggested that cultural factors, such as educational practices and the emphasis on critical thinking, can also influence the development of reasoning skills across different populations. == Different sorts of reasoning == Philip Johnson-Laird trying to taxonomize thought, distinguished between goal-directed thinking and thinking without goal, noting that association was involved in unrelated reading. He argues that goal directed reasoning can be classified based on the problem space involved in a solution, citing Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific cases or observations. In this process of reasoning, general assertions are made based on past specific pieces of evidence. This kind of reasoning allows the conclusion to be false even if the original statement is true. For example, if one observes a college athlete, one makes predictions and assumptions about other college athletes based on that one observation. Scientists use inductive reasoning to create theories and hypotheses. Philip Johnson-Laird distinguished inductive from deductive reasoning, in that the former creates semantic information while the later does not . In opposition, deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. In this reasoning process a person starts with a known claim or a general belief and from there asks what follows from these foundations or how will these premises influence other beliefs. In other words, deduction starts with a hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a conclusion. Deduction helps people understand why their predictions are wrong and indicates that their prior knowledge or beliefs are off track. An example of deduction can be seen in the scientific method when testing hypotheses and theories. Although the conclusion usually corresponds and therefore proves the hypothesis, there are some cases where the conclusion is logical, but the generalization is not. For example, the argument, "All young girls wear skirts; Julie is a young

EM algorithm and GMM model

In statistics, EM (expectation maximization) algorithm handles latent variables, while GMM is the Gaussian mixture model. == Background == In the picture below, are shown the red blood cell hemoglobin concentration and the red blood cell volume data of two groups of people, the Anemia group and the control group (i.e. the group of people without Anemia). As expected, people with Anemia have lower red blood cell volume and lower red blood cell hemoglobin concentration than those without Anemia. x {\displaystyle x} is a random vector such as x := ( red blood cell volume , red blood cell hemoglobin concentration ) {\displaystyle x:={\big (}{\text{red blood cell volume}},{\text{red blood cell hemoglobin concentration}}{\big )}} , and from medical studies it is known that x {\displaystyle x} are normally distributed in each group, i.e. x ∼ N ( μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle x\sim {\mathcal {N}}(\mu ,\Sigma )} . z {\displaystyle z} is denoted as the group where x {\displaystyle x} belongs, with z i = 0 {\displaystyle z_{i}=0} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the Anemia group and z i = 1 {\displaystyle z_{i}=1} when x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} belongs to the control group. Also z ∼ Categorical ⁡ ( k , ϕ ) {\displaystyle z\sim \operatorname {Categorical} (k,\phi )} where k = 2 {\displaystyle k=2} , ϕ j ≥ 0 , {\displaystyle \phi _{j}\geq 0,} and ∑ j = 1 k ϕ j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi _{j}=1} . See Categorical distribution. The following procedure can be used to estimate ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } . A maximum likelihood estimation can be applied: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ( p ( x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ ∑ z ( i ) = 1 k p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log(p(x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma ))=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log \sum _{z^{(i)}=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)p(z^{(i)};\phi )} As the z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} for each x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are known, the log likelihood function can be simplified as below: ℓ ( ϕ , μ , Σ ) = ∑ i = 1 m log ⁡ p ( x ( i ) ∣ z ( i ) ; μ , Σ ) + log ⁡ p ( z ( i ) ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle \ell (\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma )=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\log p\left(x^{(i)}\mid z^{(i)};\mu ,\Sigma \right)+\log p\left(z^{(i)};\phi \right)} Now the likelihood function can be maximized by making partial derivative over μ , Σ , ϕ {\displaystyle \mu ,\Sigma ,\phi } , obtaining: ϕ j = 1 m ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \phi _{j}={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}} μ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \mu _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\left\{z^{(i)}=j\right\}}}} Σ j = ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m 1 { z ( i ) = j } {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j})^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}1\{z^{(i)}=j\}}}} If z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is known, the estimation of the parameters results to be quite simple with maximum likelihood estimation. But if z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} is unknown it is much more complicated. Being z {\displaystyle z} a latent variable (i.e. not observed), with unlabeled scenario, the expectation maximization algorithm is needed to estimate z {\displaystyle z} as well as other parameters. Generally, this problem is set as a GMM since the data in each group is normally distributed. In machine learning, the latent variable z {\displaystyle z} is considered as a latent pattern lying under the data, which the observer is not able to see very directly. x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the known data, while ϕ , μ , Σ {\displaystyle \phi ,\mu ,\Sigma } are the parameter of the model. With the EM algorithm, some underlying pattern z {\displaystyle z} in the data x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} can be found, along with the estimation of the parameters. The wide application of this circumstance in machine learning is what makes EM algorithm so important. == EM algorithm in GMM == The EM algorithm consists of two steps: the E-step and the M-step. Firstly, the model parameters and the z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} can be randomly initialized. In the E-step, the algorithm tries to guess the value of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} based on the parameters, while in the M-step, the algorithm updates the value of the model parameters based on the guess of z ( i ) {\displaystyle z^{(i)}} of the E-step. These two steps are repeated until convergence is reached. The algorithm in GMM is: Repeat until convergence: 1. (E-step) For each i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , set w j ( i ) := p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle w_{j}^{(i)}:=p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)} 2. (M-step) Update the parameters ϕ j := 1 m ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \phi _{j}:={\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}} μ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) x ( i ) ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \mu _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}x^{(i)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} Σ j := ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T ∑ i = 1 m w j ( i ) {\displaystyle \Sigma _{j}:={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}}{\sum _{i=1}^{m}w_{j}^{(i)}}}} With Bayes' rule, the following result is obtained by the E-step: p ( z ( i ) = j | x ( i ) ; ϕ , μ , Σ ) = p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) ∑ l = 1 k p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = l ; μ , Σ ) p ( z ( i ) = l ; ϕ ) {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j|x^{(i)};\phi ,\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)}{\sum _{l=1}^{k}p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=l;\mu ,\Sigma \right)p\left(z^{(i)}=l;\phi \right)}}} According to GMM setting, these following formulas are obtained: p ( x ( i ) | z ( i ) = j ; μ , Σ ) = 1 ( 2 π ) n / 2 | Σ j | 1 / 2 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) T Σ j − 1 ( x ( i ) − μ j ) ) {\displaystyle p\left(x^{(i)}|z^{(i)}=j;\mu ,\Sigma \right)={\frac {1}{(2\pi )^{n/2}\left|\Sigma _{j}\right|^{1/2}}}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)^{T}\Sigma _{j}^{-1}\left(x^{(i)}-\mu _{j}\right)\right)} p ( z ( i ) = j ; ϕ ) = ϕ j {\displaystyle p\left(z^{(i)}=j;\phi \right)=\phi _{j}} In this way, a switch between the E-step and the M-step is possible, according to the randomly initialized parameters.

Medical data breach

Medical data, including patients' identity information, health status, disease diagnosis and treatment, and biogenetic information, not only involve patients' privacy but also have a special sensitivity and important value, which may bring physical and mental distress and property loss to patients and even negatively affect social stability and national security once leaked. However, the development and application of medical AI must rely on a large amount of medical data for algorithm training, and the larger and more diverse the amount of data, the more accurate the results of its analysis and prediction will be. However, the application of big data technologies such as data collection, analysis and processing, cloud storage, and information sharing has increased the risk of data leakage. In the United States, the rate of such breaches has increased over time, with 176 million records breached by the end of 2017. By 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported 725 large healthcare data breaches affecting approximately 275 million individual records in a single year, marking a significant escalation in both the frequency and scale of incidents. == Black market for health data == In February 2015 an NPR report claimed that organized crime networks had ways of selling health data in the black market. In 2015 a Beazley employee estimated that medical records could sell on the black market for US$40-50. == How data is lost == Theft, data loss, hacking, and unauthorized account access are ways in which medical data breaches happen. Among reported breaches of medical information in the United States networked information systems accounted for the largest number of records breached. There are many data breaches happening in the US health care system, among business associates of the health care providers that continuously gain access to patients' data. == List of data breaches == In February 2024, a ransomware attack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, compromised the protected health information of approximately 100 million individuals, making it the largest healthcare data breach in United States history. The attack disrupted claims processing for healthcare providers nationwide for several weeks. In May 2024, MediSecure suffered a cyberattack involving ransomware in Australia. In May 2021, the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland was the victim of a cyberattack involving ransomware, in the Health Service Executive cyberattack, with admission records and test results present in a sample of the data reviewed by the Financial Times. In October 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the US reported that around 75,000 individual records had been affected by a data breach that took place through the ACA Agent and Broker Portal. In 2018, Social Indicators Research published the scientific evidence of 173,398,820 (over 173 million) individuals affected in USA from October 2008 (when the data were collected) to September 2017 (when the statistical analysis took place). In 2015, Anthem Inc. lost data for 37 million people in the Anthem medical data breach In 2014 4.5 million people using Complete Health Systems had their data stolen In 2013-14 1 million people using Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services had their data stolen In 2013 4 million people using Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation had their data stolen In 2011 4.9 million users of Tricare services had their data stolen due to an employee error by Science Applications International Corporation In 2011 1.9 million people using Health Net had their data stolen In 2011 1 million people using Nemours Foundation had their data stolen In 2010 6800 people using New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center had their data breached. In response, those organizations agreed to pay the United States Department of Health and Human Services a US$4.8 million dollar fine. In 2009 1 million people using BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee had their data stolen == Regulation == In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act require companies to report data breaches to affected individuals and the federal government. Under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule, covered entities must notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 days after discovering a breach of unsecured protected health information. Breaches affecting 500 or more individuals must also be reported to the HHS Secretary and to prominent media outlets serving the affected state or jurisdiction within the same timeframe; HHS publicly lists these larger breaches on its breach portal, commonly known as the "wall of shame." Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals are reported to HHS annually, no later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year in which they were discovered. Health Information Privacy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). - 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information and Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information. HIPAA includes provisions designed to save health care businesses money by encouraging electronic transactions, as well as regulations to protect the security and confidentiality of patient information. The Privacy Rule became effective April 14, 2001, and most covered entities (health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that conduct certain financial and administrative transactions electronically) had until April 2003 to comply. This security provision became effective April 21, 2003. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the baseline set of federal regulations governing medical information. It does three things: i. i. i.Establish a structure for how personal health information is disclosed and establish the rights of individuals with respect to health information; ii.Specify security standards for the retention and transmission of electronic patient information; iii.Need a common format and data structure for the electronic exchange of health information. California-Specific Laws California’s medical privacy laws, primarily the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), the data breach sections of the Civil Code, and sections of the Health and Safety Code, provide HIPAA-like protections, although the terminology is different. HIPAA establishes a federal "minimum standard" that applies where there are gaps in California law, and HIPAA also specifies that stricter state laws will override or supersede HIPAA. California's health care privacy laws apply to providers who provide personal health records (PHR), while HIPAA only applies when the provider providing the PHR is a business associate of a covered entity. Federal law does not grant individuals the right to file a lawsuit in the event of a data breach (only the Attorney General can file a lawsuit), but California law does. This means that California law sets a higher standard for medical privacy, and that individuals in California enjoy stronger legal protections and more ways to hold entities that violate their medical privacy accountable. In the UK, the legal framework for how patient data is cared for and processed is the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), which incorporates the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) into law, and the common law duty of confidentiality (CLDC). The data protection legislation requires that the collection and processing of personal data be fair, lawful and transparent. This means that the collection and processing of data as defined by data protection legislation must always have a valid lawful basis and must also meet the requirements of the CLDC. In the China, Article 18 of the "National Health Care Big Data Standards, Security and Services Management Measures (for Trial Implementation)" (National Health Planning and Development (2018) No. 23) promulgated by the National Health Care Commission in 2018 states, "The responsible unit shall adopt measures such as data classification, important data backup, and encryption authentication to guarantee the security of health care big data." However, the scope and definition of important data are not covered. Although the "Information Security Technology-Healthcare Data Security Guide" (the "Guide") issued by the National Standardization Committee also proposes that important data should be evaluated and approved in accordance with the regulations, there is likewise no definition of the connotation and definition of important data.

Schema-agnostic databases

Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.