Protecting patient privacy in clinical narratives is essential for enabling secondary use of healthcare data under regulations such as GDPR and HIPAA. While manual de-identification remains the gold standard, it is costly and slow, motivating the need for automated methods that combine privacy guarantees with high utility. Historically, most automated text de-identification pipelines employed named entity recognition (NER) to identify protected entities for redaction. Although methods based on differential privacy (DP) provide formal privacy guarantees, more recently also large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for text de-identification in the clinical domain. In this work, we present the first comparative study of DP, NER, and LLMs for Dutch clinical text de-identification. We investigate these methods separately as well as hybrid strategies that apply NER or LLM preprocessing prior to DP, and assess performance in terms of privacy leakage and extrinsic evaluation (entity and relation classification). We show that DP mechanisms alone degrade utility substantially, but combining them with linguistic preprocessing, especially LLM-based redaction, significantly improves the privacy–utility trade-off.

Generating high-quality summaries for chat dialogs often requires large labeled datasets. We propose a method to efficiently use unlabeled data for extractive summarization of customer-agent dialogs. In our method, we frame summarization as a question-answering problem and use state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) to generate pseudo-labels for a dialog. We then use these pseudo-labels to fine-tune a chat summarization model, effectively transferring knowledge from the large LLM into a smaller specialized model. We demonstrate our method on the TWEETSUMM dataset, and show that using 10% of the original labelled data set we can achieve 65.9/57.0/61.0 ROUGE-1/-2/-L, whereas the current state-of-the-art trained on the entire training data set obtains 65.16/55.81/64.37 ROUGE-1/-2/-L. In other words, in the worst case (i.e., ROUGE-L) we still effectively retain 94.7% of the performance while using only 10% of the data.