ArticleInternational journal of population data science2024
Generating synthetic identifiers to support development and evaluation of data linkage methods.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- False Discovery Estimation in Record Linkage.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Careful development and evaluation of data linkage methods is limited by researcher access to personal identifiers. One solution is to generate synthetic identifiers, which do not pose equivalent privacy concerns, but can form a 'gold-standard' linkage algorithm training dataset. Such data could help inform choices about appropriate linkage strategies in different settings. Objectives: We aimed to develop and demonstrate a framework for generating synthetic identifier datasets to support development and evaluation of data linkage methods. We evaluated whether replicating associations between attributes and identifiers improved the utility of the synthetic data for assessing linkage error. Methods: We determined the steps required to generate synthetic identifiers that replicate the properties of real-world data collection. We then generated synthetic versions of a large UK cohort study (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; ALSPAC), according to the quality and completeness of identifiers recorded over several waves of the cohort. We evaluated the utility of the synthetic identifier data in terms of assessing linkage quality (false matches and missed matches). Results: Comparing data from two collection points in ALSPAC, we found within-person disagreement in identifiers (differences in recording due to both natural change and non-valid entries) in 18% of surnames and 12% of forenames. Rates of disagreement varied by maternal age and ethnic group. Synthetic data provided accurate estimates of linkage quality metrics compared with the original data (within 0.13-0.55% for missed matches and 0.00-0.04% for false matches). Incorporating associations between identifier errors and maternal age/ethnicity improved synthetic data utility. Conclusions: We show that replicating dependencies between attribute values (e.g. ethnicity), values of identifiers (e.g. name), identifier disagreements (e.g. missing values, errors or changes over time), and their patterns and distribution structure enables generation of realistic synthetic data that can be used for robust evaluation of linkage methods.
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.