Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693507›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Estimating parameters for probabilistic linkage of privacy-preserved datasets.

Adrian P Brown, Sean M Randall, Anna M Ferrante, James B Semmens, James H Boyd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review of Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020
    Review
  6. Population Data Centre Profiles: Centre for Data Linkage.International journal of population data science · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Privacy preserving linkage using multiple match-keys.International journal of population data science · 2019
    Article
  9. 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.

Adrian P BrownCentre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia. adrian.brown@curtin.edu.au.
Sean M RandallCentre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia.
Anna M FerranteCentre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia.
James B SemmensCentre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia.
James H BoydCentre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Western Australia, 6102, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProbabilistic record linkage is a process used to bring together person-based records from within the same dataset (de-duplication) or from disparate datasets using pairwise comparisons and matching probabilities. The linkage strategy and associated match probabilities are often estimated through investigations into data quality and manual inspection. However, as privacy-preserved datasets comprise encrypted data, such methods are not possible. In this paper, we present a method for estimating the probabilities and threshold values for probabilistic privacy-preserved record linkage using Bloom filters.

methodsOur method was tested through a simulation study using synthetic data, followed by an application using real-world administrative data. Synthetic datasets were generated with error rates from zero to 20% error. Our method was used to estimate parameters (probabilities and thresholds) for de-duplication linkages. Linkage quality was determined by F-measure. Each dataset was privacy-preserved using separate Bloom filters for each field. Match probabilities were estimated using the expectation-maximisation (EM) algorithm on the privacy-preserved data. Threshold cut-off values were determined by an extension to the EM algorithm allowing linkage quality to be estimated for each possible threshold. De-duplication linkages of each privacy-preserved dataset were performed using both estimated and calculated probabilities. Linkage quality using the F-measure at the estimated threshold values was also compared to the highest F-measure. Three large administrative datasets were used to demonstrate the applicability of the probability and threshold estimation technique on real-world data.

resultsLinkage of the synthetic datasets using the estimated probabilities produced an F-measure that was comparable to the F-measure using calculated probabilities, even with up to 20% error. Linkage of the administrative datasets using estimated probabilities produced an F-measure that was higher than the F-measure using calculated probabilities. Further, the threshold estimation yielded results for F-measure that were only slightly below the highest possible for those probabilities.

conclusionsThe method appears highly accurate across a spectrum of datasets with varying degrees of error. As there are few alternatives for parameter estimation, the approach is a major step towards providing a complete operational approach for probabilistic linkage of privacy-preserved datasets.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyPrivacyProbabilityComputer SecurityDatasets as TopicHumansMedical Record LinkageReproducibility of ResultsData qualityLinkage qualityPrivacyProbabilisticRecord linkage

Identifiers

PMID28693507
PMCPMC5504757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.