Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875581›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2024

Reidentification of Participants in Shared Clinical Data Sets: Experimental Study.

Daniela Wiepert, Bradley A Malin, Joseph R Duffy, Rene L Utianski, John L Stricker, David T Jones, Hugo Botha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2024. 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. Ethical considerations for clinical adoption of ambient digital scribe technology.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Daniela WiepertDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-1712
Bradley A MalinDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3040-5175
Joseph R DuffyDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8206-3432
Rene L UtianskiDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-1302
John L StrickerDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5349-8541
David T JonesDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-9833
Hugo BothaDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4390-685X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge curated data sets are required to leverage speech-based tools in health care. These are costly to produce, resulting in increased interest in data sharing. As speech can potentially identify speakers (ie, voiceprints), sharing recordings raises privacy concerns. This is especially relevant when working with patient data protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

objectiveWe aimed to determine the reidentification risk for speech recordings, without reference to demographics or metadata, in clinical data sets considering both the size of the search space (ie, the number of comparisons that must be considered when reidentifying) and the nature of the speech recording (ie, the type of speech task).

methodsUsing a state-of-the-art speaker identification model, we modeled an adversarial attack scenario in which an adversary uses a large data set of identified speech (hereafter, the known set) to reidentify as many unknown speakers in a shared data set (hereafter, the unknown set) as possible. We first considered the effect of search space size by attempting reidentification with various sizes of known and unknown sets using VoxCeleb, a data set with recordings of natural, connected speech from >7000 healthy speakers. We then repeated these tests with different types of recordings in each set to examine whether the nature of a speech recording influences reidentification risk. For these tests, we used our clinical data set composed of recordings of elicited speech tasks from 941 speakers.

resultsWe found that the risk was inversely related to the number of comparisons an adversary must consider (ie, the search space), with a positive linear correlation between the number of false acceptances (FAs) and the number of comparisons (r=0.69; P<.001). The true acceptances (TAs) stayed relatively stable, and the ratio between FAs and TAs rose from 0.02 at 1 × 10

conclusionsOur findings suggest that speaker identification models can be used to reidentify participants in specific circumstances, but in practice, the reidentification risk appears small. The variation in risk due to search space size and type of speech task provides actionable recommendations to further increase participant privacy and considerations for policy regarding public release of speech recordings.

Indexed as

adversarial attackhealth careprivacyreidentificationspeech disordersvoiceprint

Identifiers

PMID38875581
PMCPMC11041495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.