ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013
Pseudonymization of patient identifiers for translational research.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-informant clinical outcome assessment in the inclusive orchestra: measurement architecture for neurodevelopmental disorders prior to empirical evaluation.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Establishing a Structured Hypospadias Biobank Cohort for Integrated Research: Methodology, Comprehensive Database Integration, and Phenotyping.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Scalable Pseudonymization Tool for Rapid Deployment in Large Biomedical Research Networks: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Development of a Trusted Third Party at a Large University Hospital: Design and Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- A data flow process for confidential data and its application in a health research project.PloS one · 2022Article
- Key components and IT assistance of participant management in clinical research: a scoping review.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Pseudonymization for research data collection: is the juice worth the squeeze?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Privacy-Preserving Record Grouping and Consent Management Based on a Public-Private Key Signature Scheme: Theoretical Analysis and Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- CogStack - experiences of deploying integrated information retrieval and extraction services in a large National Health Service Foundation Trust hospital.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Quality Requirements for Electronic Health Record Systems*. A Japanese-German Information Management Perspective.Methods of information in medicine · 2017Article
- A generic solution for web-based management of pseudonymized data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe usage of patient data for research poses risks concerning the patients' privacy and informational self-determination. Next-generation-sequencing technologies and various other methods gain data from biospecimen, both for translational research and personalized medicine. If these biospecimen are anonymized, individual research results from genomic research, which should be offered to patients in a clinically relevant timeframe, cannot be associated back to the individual. This raises an ethical concern and challenges the legitimacy of anonymized patient samples. In this paper we present a new approach which supports both data privacy and the possibility to give feedback to patients about their individual research results.
methodsWe examined previously published privacy concepts regarding a streamlined de-pseudonymization process and a patient-based pseudonym as applicable to research with genomic data and warehousing approaches. All concepts identified in the literature review were compared to each other and analyzed for their applicability to translational research projects. We evaluated how these concepts cope with challenges implicated by personalized medicine. Therefore, both person-centricity issues and a separation of pseudonymization and de-pseudonymization stood out as a central theme in our examination. This motivated us to enhance an existing pseudonymization method regarding a separation of duties.
resultsThe existing concepts rely on external trusted third parties, making de-pseudonymization a multistage process involving additional interpersonal communication, which might cause critical delays in patient care. Therefore we propose an enhanced method with an asymmetric encryption scheme separating the duties of pseudonymization and de-pseudonymization. The pseudonymization service provider is unable to conclude the patient identifier from the pseudonym, but assigns this ability to an authorized third party (ombudsman) instead. To solve person-centricity issues, a collision-resistant function is incorporated into the method. These two facts combined enable us to address essential challenges in translational research. A productive software prototype was implemented to prove the functionality of the suggested translational, data privacy-preserving method. Eventually, we performed a threat analysis to evaluate potential hazards connected with this pseudonymization method.
conclusionsThe proposed method offers sustainable organizational simplification regarding an ethically indicated, but secure and controlled process of de-pseudonymizing patients. A pseudonym is patient-centered to allow correlating separate datasets from one patient. Therefore, this method bridges the gap between bench and bedside in translational research while preserving patient privacy. Assigned ombudsmen are able to de-pseudonymize a patient, if an individual research result is clinically relevant.
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.