Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31414666›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2019

Privacy-Preserving Methods for Feature Engineering Using Blockchain: Review, Evaluation, and Proof of Concept.

Michael Jones, Matthew Johnson, Mark Shervey, Joel T Dudley, Noah Zimmerman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Applications of Blockchain in the Medical Field: Narrative Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Recent Developments in Privacy-Preserving Mining of Clinical Data.ACM/IMS transactions on data science · 2021
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Blockchain in Health Care: Hope or Hype?Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Michael JonesCenter for Biomedical Blockchain Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6305-3893
Matthew JohnsonCenter for Biomedical Blockchain Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7056-2824
Mark SherveyCenter for Biomedical Blockchain Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9386-864X
Joel T DudleyCenter for Biomedical Blockchain Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7036-6492
Noah ZimmermanCenter for Biomedical Blockchain Research, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Redwood City, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3391-2623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe protection of private data is a key responsibility for research studies that collect identifiable information from study participants. Limiting the scope of data collection and preventing secondary use of the data are effective strategies for managing these risks. An ideal framework for data collection would incorporate feature engineering, a process where secondary features are derived from sensitive raw data in a secure environment without a trusted third party.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare current approaches based on how they maintain data privacy and the practicality of their implementations. These approaches include traditional approaches that rely on trusted third parties, and cryptographic, secure hardware, and blockchain-based techniques.

methodsA set of properties were defined for evaluating each approach. A qualitative comparison was presented based on these properties. The evaluation of each approach was framed with a use case of sharing geolocation data for biomedical research.

resultsWe found that approaches that rely on a trusted third party for preserving participant privacy do not provide sufficiently strong guarantees that sensitive data will not be exposed in modern data ecosystems. Cryptographic techniques incorporate strong privacy-preserving paradigms but are appropriate only for select use cases or are currently limited because of computational complexity. Blockchain smart contracts alone are insufficient to provide data privacy because transactional data are public. Trusted execution environments (TEEs) may have hardware vulnerabilities and lack visibility into how data are processed. Hybrid approaches combining blockchain and cryptographic techniques or blockchain and TEEs provide promising frameworks for privacy preservation. For reference, we provide a software implementation where users can privately share features of their geolocation data using the hybrid approach combining blockchain with TEEs as a supplement.

conclusionsBlockchain technology and smart contracts enable the development of new privacy-preserving feature engineering methods by obviating dependence on trusted parties and providing immutable, auditable data processing workflows. The overlap between blockchain and cryptographic techniques or blockchain and secure hardware technologies are promising fields for addressing important data privacy needs. Hybrid blockchain and TEE frameworks currently provide practical tools for implementing experimental privacy-preserving applications.

Indexed as

PrivacyProof of Concept StudyBlockchainComputer SecurityHumansblockchainconfidentialitycryptographydata collectionfeature engineeringgeolocationmachine learningmobile healthprivacysmart contracttrusted execution environment

Identifiers

PMID31414666
PMCPMC6712958

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.