Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39018389›Full record

ReviewScience advances2024

Anonymization: The imperfect science of using data while preserving privacy.

Andrea Gadotti, Luc Rocher, Florimond Houssiau, Ana-Maria Creţu, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Deep learning for electrocardiogram interpretation: Bench to bedside.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Andrea GadottiImperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2323-3168
Luc RocherImperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9956-1187
Florimond HoussiauImperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Ana-Maria CreţuImperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9009-7381
Yves-Alexandre de MontjoyeImperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2559-5616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information about us, our actions, and our preferences is created at scale through surveys or scientific studies or as a result of our interaction with digital devices such as smartphones and fitness trackers. The ability to safely share and analyze such data is key for scientific and societal progress. Anonymization is considered by scientists and policy-makers as one of the main ways to share data while minimizing privacy risks. In this review, we offer a pragmatic perspective on the modern literature on privacy attacks and anonymization techniques. We discuss traditional de-identification techniques and their strong limitations in the age of big data. We then turn our attention to modern approaches to share anonymous aggregate data, such as data query systems, synthetic data, and differential privacy. We find that, although no perfect solution exists, applying modern techniques while auditing their guarantees against attacks is the best approach to safely use and share data today.

Identifiers

PMID39018389
PMCPMC466941

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.