SynthesisBriefings in bioinformatics2022
Open tools for quantitative anonymization of tabular phenotype data: literature review.
Synthesis in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Costs of Anonymization: Case Study Using Clinical Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- [Artificial intelligence and secure use of health data in the KI-FDZ project: anonymization, synthetization, and secure processing of real-world data].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Review
- Data Quality- and Utility-Compliant Anonymization of Common Data Model-Harmonized Electronic Health Record Data: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Machine Learning in Laboratory Medicine: Recommendations of the IFCC Working Group.Clinical chemistry · 2023Article
- Using preregistration as a tool for transparent fNIRS study design.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precision medicine relies on molecular and systems biology methods as well as bidirectional association studies of phenotypes and (high-throughput) genomic data. However, the integrated use of such data often faces obstacles, especially in regards to data protection. An important prerequisite for research data processing is usually informed consent. But collecting consent is not always feasible, in particular when data are to be analyzed retrospectively. For phenotype data, anonymization, i.e. the altering of data in such a way that individuals cannot be identified, can provide an alternative. Several re-identification attacks have shown that this is a complex task and that simply removing directly identifying attributes such as names is usually not enough. More formal approaches are needed that use mathematical models to quantify risks and guide their reduction. Due to the complexity of these techniques, it is challenging and not advisable to implement them from scratch. Open software libraries and tools can provide a robust alternative. However, also the range of available anonymization tools is heterogeneous and obtaining an overview of their strengths and weaknesses is difficult due to the complexity of the problem space. We therefore performed a systematic review of open anonymization tools for structured phenotype data described in the literature between 1990 and 2021. Through a two-step eligibility assessment process, we selected 13 tools for an in-depth analysis. By comparing the supported anonymization techniques and further aspects, such as maturity, we derive recommendations for tools to use for anonymizing phenotype datasets with different properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.