Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31922426›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2020

Privacy Risks of Sharing Data from Environmental Health Studies.

Katherine E Boronow, Laura J Perovich, Latanya Sweeney, Ji Su Yoo, Ruthann A Rudel, Phil Brown, Julia Green Brody

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2020. 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  2. Good Ethical and Laboratory Practices for Wastewater Surveillance.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine E BoronowSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Laura J PerovichSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Latanya SweeneyDepartment of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ji Su YooDepartment of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ruthann A RudelSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Phil BrownDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology and Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Julia Green BrodySilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Silent Spring Institute · USHarvard University · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Data Sharing and Privacy Protection in Digital-Age Environmental Health StudiesR01ES021726 · NIEHS · SILENT SPRING INSTITUTE · PI BRODY, JULIA GREEN, BROWN, PHILIP M. · 2012 to 2016
$1.8M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES021726
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSharing research data uses resources effectively; enables large, diverse data sets; and supports rigor and reproducibility. However, sharing such data increases privacy risks for participants who may be re-identified by linking study data to outside data sets. These risks have been investigated for genetic and medical records but rarely for environmental data.

objectivesWe evaluated how data in environmental health (EH) studies may be vulnerable to linkage and we investigated, in a case study, whether environmental measurements could contribute to inferring latent categories (e.g., geographic location), which increases privacy risks.

methodsWe identified 12 prominent EH studies, reviewed the data types collected, and evaluated the availability of outside data sets that overlap with study data. With data from the Household Exposure Study in California and Massachusetts and the Green Housing Study in Boston, Massachusetts, and Cincinnati, Ohio, we used

resultsAll 12 studies included at least two of five data types that overlap with outside data sets: geographic location (9 studies), medical data (9 studies), occupation (10 studies), housing characteristics (10 studies), and genetic data (7 studies). In our cluster analysis, participants' region of residence could be inferred with 80%-98% accuracy using environmental measurements with original laboratory reporting limits. DISCUSSION: EH studies frequently include data that are vulnerable to linkage with voter lists, tax and real estate data, professional licensing lists, and ancestry websites, and exposure measurements may be used to identify subgroup membership, increasing likelihood of linkage. Thus, unsupervised sharing of EH research data potentially raises substantial privacy risks. Empirical research can help characterize risks and evaluate technical solutions. Our findings reinforce the need for legal and policy protections to shield participants from potential harms of re-identification from data sharing. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4817.

Indexed as

DisclosureEnvironmental HealthInformation DisseminationPrivacy

Identifiers

PMID31922426
PMCPMC7015543
OpenAlexW2998926648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.