Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34333623›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Differential privacy in health research: A scoping review.

Joseph Ficek, Wei Wang, Henian Chen, Getachew Dagne, Ellen Daley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pseudonymization tools for medical research: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Body Surface Potential Mapping: A Perspective on High-Density Cutaneous Electrophysiology.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
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.

Joseph FicekCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3553-7353
Wei WangCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Henian ChenCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Getachew DagneCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Ellen DaleyCollege of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDifferential privacy is a relatively new method for data privacy that has seen growing use due its strong protections that rely on added noise. This study assesses the extent of its awareness, development, and usage in health research. MATERIALS AND

methodsA scoping review was conducted by searching for ["differential privacy" AND "health"] in major health science databases, with additional articles obtained via expert consultation. Relevant articles were classified according to subject area and focus.

resultsA total of 54 articles met the inclusion criteria. Nine articles provided descriptive overviews, 31 focused on algorithm development, 9 presented novel data sharing systems, and 8 discussed appraisals of the privacy-utility tradeoff. The most common areas of health research where differential privacy has been discussed are genomics, neuroimaging studies, and health surveillance with personal devices. Algorithms were most commonly developed for the purposes of data release and predictive modeling. Studies on privacy-utility appraisals have considered economic cost-benefit analysis, low-utility situations, personal attitudes toward sharing health data, and mathematical interpretations of privacy risk. DISCUSSION: Differential privacy remains at an early stage of development for applications in health research, and accounts of real-world implementations are scant. There are few algorithms for explanatory modeling and statistical inference, particularly with correlated data. Furthermore, diminished accuracy in small datasets is problematic. Some encouraging work has been done on decision making with regard to epsilon. The dissemination of future case studies can inform successful appraisals of privacy and utility.

conclusionsMore development, case studies, and evaluations are needed before differential privacy can see widespread use in health research.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityPrivacyAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualGenomicsconfidentialitydata sharingdifferential privacyprivacystatistical disclosure limitation

Identifiers

PMID34333623
PMCPMC8449619

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.