ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014
Size matters: how population size influences genotype-phenotype association studies in anonymized data.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical biases due to anonymization evaluated in an open clinical dataset from COVID-19 patients.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Design and evaluation of a data anonymization pipeline to promote Open Science on COVID-19.Scientific data · 2020Article
- Enhancing Reuse of Data and Biological Material in Medical Research: From FAIR to FAIR-Health.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2018Review
- Detecting the Presence of an Individual in Phenotypic Summary Data.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- A multi-institution evaluation of clinical profile anonymization.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
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
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
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.