ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2013
Reducing patient re-identification risk for laboratory results within research datasets.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proposal of a procedure to stratify the reidentification risk of medical data: RIMEDA.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Precision cardiovascular medicine with big data and AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Article
- Regulations and Norms for Reuse of Residual Clinical Biospecimens and Health Data.Western journal of nursing research · 2022Review
- Revolutionizing Medical Data Sharing Using Advanced Privacy-Enhancing Technologies: Technical, Legal, and Ethical Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Lost in Anonymization - A Data Anonymization Reference Classification Merging Legal and Technical Considerations.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Regulating the Secondary Use of Data for Research: Arguments Against Genetic Exceptionalism.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Points to consider for sharing variant-level information from clinical genetic testing with ClinVar.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2018Article
- Detecting the Presence of an Individual in Phenotypic Summary Data.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Security controls in an integrated Biobank to protect privacy in data sharing: rationale and study design.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Information technology for clinical, translational and comparative effectiveness research. Findings from the section clinical research informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2014Review
- Ensuring privacy in the study of pathogen genetics.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2014Review
- Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo try to lower patient re-identification risks for biomedical research databases containing laboratory test results while also minimizing changes in clinical data interpretation. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn our threat model, an attacker obtains 5-7 laboratory results from one patient and uses them as a search key to discover the corresponding record in a de-identified biomedical research database. To test our models, the existing Vanderbilt TIME database of 8.5 million Safe Harbor de-identified laboratory results from 61 280 patients was used. The uniqueness of unaltered laboratory results in the dataset was examined, and then two data perturbation models were applied-simple random offsets and an expert-derived clinical meaning-preserving model. A rank-based re-identification algorithm to mimic an attack was used. The re-identification risk and the retention of clinical meaning for each model's perturbed laboratory results were assessed.
resultsDifferences in re-identification rates between the algorithms were small despite substantial divergence in altered clinical meaning. The expert algorithm maintained the clinical meaning of laboratory results better (affecting up to 4% of test results) than simple perturbation (affecting up to 26%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionWith growing impetus for sharing clinical data for research, and in view of healthcare-related federal privacy regulation, methods to mitigate risks of re-identification are important. A practical, expert-derived perturbation algorithm that demonstrated potential utility was developed. Similar approaches might enable administrators to select data protection scheme parameters that meet their preferences in the trade-off between the protection of privacy and the retention of clinical meaning of shared data.
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.