Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25038554›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014

Size matters: how population size influences genotype-phenotype association studies in anonymized data.

Raymond Heatherly, Joshua C Denny, Jonathan L Haines, Dan M Roden, Bradley A Malin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Detecting the Presence of an Individual in Phenotypic Summary Data.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  5. A multi-institution evaluation of clinical profile anonymization.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Raymond HeatherlyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. Electronic address: r.heatherly@vanderbilt.edu.
Joshua C DennyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
Jonathan L HainesDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, USA.
Dan M RodenDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA; Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
Bradley A MalinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA; Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, School of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1030, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.

Funding

From GWAS to PheWAS: Scanning the EMR Phenome for Gene-disease AssociationsR01LM010685 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BASTARACHE, LISA · 2011 to 2022
$6.3M
eMERGE Coordinating Center - Administrative SupplementU01HG006385 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI HARRIS, PAUL A. · 2011 to 2014
$5.4M
Vanderbilt Genome Electronic Records ProjectU01HG006378 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI RODEN, DAN M · 2011 to 2014
$4.0M
A Risk Management Framework for Identifiability in Genomics ResearchR01HG006844 · NHGRI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2012 to 2019
$2.4M
Technologies to Enable Privacy in Biomedical DatabanksR01LM009989 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MALIN, BRADLEY A. · 2009 to 2014
$1.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG006844NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006378NHGRI NIH HHS U01HG006378NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG006385NHGRI NIH HHS U01HG006385NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009989NLM NIH HHS R01LM009989NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010685NLM NIH HHS R01LM010685
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic medical records (EMRs) data is increasingly incorporated into genome-phenome association studies. Investigators hope to share data, but there are concerns it may be "re-identified" through the exploitation of various features, such as combinations of standardized clinical codes. Formal anonymization algorithms (e.g., k-anonymization) can prevent such violations, but prior studies suggest that the size of the population available for anonymization may influence the utility of the resulting data. We systematically investigate this issue using a large-scale biorepository and EMR system through which we evaluate the ability of researchers to learn from anonymized data for genome-phenome association studies under various conditions.

methodsWe use a k-anonymization strategy to simulate a data protection process (on data sets containing clinical codes) for resources of similar size to those found at nine academic medical institutions within the United States. Following the protection process, we replicate an existing genome-phenome association study and compare the discoveries using the protected data and the original data through the correlation (r(2)) of the p-values of association significance.

resultsOur investigation shows that anonymizing an entire dataset with respect to the population from which it is derived yields significantly more utility than small study-specific datasets anonymized unto themselves. When evaluated using the correlation of genome-phenome association strengths on anonymized data versus original data, all nine simulated sites, results from largest-scale anonymizations (population ∼100,000) retained better utility to those on smaller sizes (population ∼6000-75,000). We observed a general trend of increasing r(2) for larger data set sizes: r(2)=0.9481 for small-sized datasets, r(2)=0.9493 for moderately-sized datasets, r(2)=0.9934 for large-sized datasets.

conclusionsThis research implies that regardless of the overall size of an institution's data, there may be significant benefits to anonymization of the entire EMR, even if the institution is planning on releasing only data about a specific cohort of patients.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDatabases, GeneticElectronic Health RecordsSample SizeAlgorithmsBiomedical ResearchComputer SimulationGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnonymizationClinical codesData publishingPrivacy

Identifiers

PMID25038554
PMCPMC4260994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.