ArticlePloS one2023
The utility of Zip4 codes in spatial epidemiological analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic privacy and security in the era of artificial intelligence and quantum computing.Discover computing · 2025Review
- From infectious diseases to chronic diseases: the paradigm shift of spatial epidemiology in disease prevention and control.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Longitudinal Impacts of High Versus Low Greenness on Cardiovascular Disease Conditions.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many public health situations within the United States that require fine geographical scale data to effectively inform response and intervention strategies. However, a condition for accessing and analyzing such data, especially when multiple institutions are involved, is being able to preserve a degree of spatial privacy and confidentiality. Hospitals and state health departments, who are generally the custodians of these fine-scale health data, are sometimes understandably hesitant to collaborate with each other due to these concerns. This paper looks at the utility and pitfalls of using Zip4 codes, a data layer often included as it is believed to be "safe", as a source for sharing fine-scale spatial health data that enables privacy preservation while maintaining a suitable precision for spatial analysis. While the Zip4 is widely supplied, researchers seldom utilize it. Nor is its spatial characteristics known by data guardians. To address this gap, we use the context of a near-real time spatial response to an emerging health threat to show how the Zip4 aggregation preserves an underlying spatial structure making it potentially suitable dataset for analysis. Our results suggest that based on the density of urbanization, Zip4 centroids are within 150 meters of the real location almost 99% of the time. Spatial analysis experiments performed on these Zip4 data suggest a far more insightful geographic output than if using more commonly used aggregation units such as street lines and census block groups. However, this improvement in analytical output comes at a spatial privy cost as Zip4 centroids have a higher potential of compromising spatial anonymity with 73% of addresses having a spatial k anonymity value less than 5 when compared to other aggregations. We conclude that while offers an exciting opportunity to share data between organizations, researchers and analysts need to be made aware of the potential for serious confidentiality violations.
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.