ArticlePloS one2011
A systematic review of re-identification attacks on health data.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 156 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
156 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Open tools for quantitative anonymization of tabular phenotype data: literature review.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Pooled it
- Algorithms to anonymize structured medical and healthcare data: A systematic review.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2022Pooled it
- Ethical issues in biomedical research using electronic health records: a systematic review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- The reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging studies: a systematic review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Are personal health records safe? A review of free web-accessible personal health record privacy policies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2012Pooled it
- Anonymization of Portuguese Clinical Notes Using Large Language Models and Quantum-Enhanced Hybrid Architectures: Comparative Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Privacy Preserving via CT/MRI and Organ Metadata Prediction.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Establishing a health information exchange research network (HIERN) to support population health studies.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Phytochemical profiling, metabolomics, and molecular docking studies of Atriplex halimus aerial parts revealing potential insecticidal activity against the malaria vector Anopheles pharoensis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- High-Fidelity Synthetic Data Replicates Clinical Prediction Performance in a Million-Patient Diabetes Cohort.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Cyberspatial privacy in the digital age: a proxemics-based framework with a healthcare application.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Commercial or industrial use of mental health data for research: primer and best-practice guidelines from the DATAMIND patient/public Lived Experience Advisory Group.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Advancing Real-World Evidence Generation: Growth and Lessons Learned from the Early Years of Cosmos.ACI open · 2026Review
- A call for principle-based acceptance of synthetic patients: establishing the AI-driven foundation for regulatory submissions.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- AI models, bias and data sharing efforts to tackle Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2025Article
- A Markov Chain Replacement Strategy for Surrogate Identifiers: Minimizing Re-Identification Risk While Preserving Text Reuse.Electronics · 2025Article
- Practical and ready-to-use methodology to assess the re-identification risk in anonymized datasets.Scientific reports · 2025Article
96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrivacy legislation in most jurisdictions allows the disclosure of health data for secondary purposes without patient consent if it is de-identified. Some recent articles in the medical, legal, and computer science literature have argued that de-identification methods do not provide sufficient protection because they are easy to reverse. Should this be the case, it would have significant and important implications on how health information is disclosed, including: (a) potentially limiting its availability for secondary purposes such as research, and (b) resulting in more identifiable health information being disclosed. Our objectives in this systematic review were to: (a) characterize known re-identification attacks on health data and contrast that to re-identification attacks on other kinds of data, (b) compute the overall proportion of records that have been correctly re-identified in these attacks, and (c) assess whether these demonstrate weaknesses in current de-identification methods. METHODS AND
findingsSearches were conducted in IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and PubMed. After screening, fourteen eligible articles representing distinct attacks were identified. On average, approximately a quarter of the records were re-identified across all studies (0.26 with 95% CI 0.046-0.478) and 0.34 for attacks on health data (95% CI 0-0.744). There was considerable uncertainty around the proportions as evidenced by the wide confidence intervals, and the mean proportion of records re-identified was sensitive to unpublished studies. Two of fourteen attacks were performed with data that was de-identified using existing standards. Only one of these attacks was on health data, which resulted in a success rate of 0.00013.
conclusionsThe current evidence shows a high re-identification rate but is dominated by small-scale studies on data that was not de-identified according to existing standards. This evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the efficacy of de-identification methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.