ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2022
Balancing Inferential Integrity and Disclosure Risk via Model Targeted Masking and Multiple Imputation.
Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2022. 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.
- Estimating Trends With Differential Item Functioning: A Comparison of Five IRT-Based Approaches.Educational and psychological measurement · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Utility and Privacy of Synthetic Breast Cancer Clinical Trial Data Sets.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Estimating Local Structural Equation Models.Journal of Intelligence · 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
There is a growing expectation that data collected by government-funded studies should be openly available to ensure research reproducibility, and so is the concern on data-privacy. A strategy to protect individuals' identity is to release multiply imputed (MI) synthetic datasets with masked sensitivity values (Rubin, 1993). However, information loss or incorrectly specified imputation models can weaken or invalidate the inferences obtained from the MI-datasets. Studying a restricted-use Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) dataset, the authors investigate the use of a new masking framework with a data-augmentation (DA) component and a tuning mechanism that balances between protecting identity-disclosure and preserving data-utility. They found, respectively in a work-disability and an interstitial lung disease study, using this DA-MI strategy reached 0% identity disclosure-risk, preserved all inferential conclusions, and on average produced 98.5% and 95.5% confidence intervals (CI) overlaps when compared to the 95% CIs constructed using the generic CSGR dataset; the lowest CI-overlap value is 91%. In contrast, the same is not true for the currently used methods; with the CI-overlap values ranging from 73.9% to 91.8% and the lowest value being 28.1%. These findings indicate that the DA-MI masking framework facilitates sharing of useful research data while protecting participants' identities.
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.