Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35253022›Full record

ArticleProceedings : ... IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE International Conference on Big Data2020

Leveraging Differential Privacy in Geospatial Analyses of Standardized Healthcare Data.

Daniel R Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings : ... IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Daniel R HarrisCenter for Clinical and Translational Sciences, Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY USA.

Funding

Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001998 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI HARTMANN, KATHERINE E, KERN, PHILIP A · 2016 to 2025
$34.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001998
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a collection of geodatabase functions which expedite utilizing differential privacy for privacy-aware geospatial analysis of healthcare data. The healthcare domain has a long history of standardization and research communities have developed open-source common data models to support the larger goals of interoperability, reproducibility, and data sharing; these models also standardize geospatial patient data. However, patient privacy laws and institutional regulations complicate geospatial analyses and dissemination of research findings due to protective restrictions in how data and results are shared. This results in infrastructures with great abilities to organize and store healthcare data, yet which lack the innate ability to produce shareable results that preserve privacy and conform to regulatory requirements. Differential privacy is a model for performing privacy-preserving analytics. We detail our process and findings in inserting an open-source library for differential privacy into a workflow for leveraging a geodatabase for geocoding and analyzing geospatial data stored as part of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model. We pilot this process using an open big data repository of addresses.

Indexed as

big data applicationsdata privacygeographic information systems

Identifiers

PMID35253022
PMCPMC8896738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.