ArticleBiopreservation and biobanking2016
Reconsidering Anonymization-Related Concepts and the Term "Identification" Against the Backdrop of the European Legal Framework.
Article in Biopreservation and biobanking, 2016. 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.
- [Nationally standardized broad consent in practice: initial experiences, current developments, and critical assessment].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Article
- You Can't Have AI Both Ways: Balancing Health Data Privacy and Access Fairly.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Use and Understanding of Anonymization and De-Identification in the Biomedical Literature: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- A Multiagent System for Dynamic Data Aggregation in Medical Research.BioMed research international · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sharing data in biomedical contexts has become increasingly relevant, but privacy concerns set constraints for free sharing of individual-level data. Data protection law protects only data relating to an identifiable individual, whereas "anonymous" data are free to be used by everybody. Usage of many terms related to anonymization is often not consistent among different domains such as statistics and law. The crucial term "identification" seems especially hard to define, since its definition presupposes the existence of identifying characteristics, leading to some circularity. In this article, we present a discussion of important terms based on a legal perspective that it is outlined before we present issues related to the usage of terms such as unique "identifiers," "quasi-identifiers," and "sensitive attributes." Based on these terms, we have tried to circumvent a circular definition for the term "identification" by making two decisions: first, deciding which (natural) identifier should stand for the individual; second, deciding how to recognize the individual. In addition, we provide an overview of anonymization techniques/methods for preventing re-identification. The discussion of basic notions related to anonymization shows that there is some work to be done in order to achieve a mutual understanding between legal and technical experts concerning some of these notions. Using a dialectical definition process in order to merge technical and legal perspectives on terms seems important for enhancing mutual understanding.
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.