Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40048290›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025

The shortcomings of synthetic census microdata.

Steven Ruggles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating the statistical realism of LLM-generated social science data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    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

1 author.

Steven RugglesDepartment of History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.ORCID 0000-0001-5353-2578

Funding

Microdata for Population Dynamics and Health ResearchR01HD043392 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Sarah M Flood, Steve Ruggles · 2002 to 2026
$14.8M
Minnesota Population Center Science and Technical CoreP2CHD041023 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI THERESA LOUISE OSYPUK · 2016 to 2026
$4.3M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041023NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD043392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

U.S. Census Bureau officials recently reaffirmed the Bureau's ongoing efforts to replace the American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata sample with "fully synthetic" data to protect respondent confidentiality. With the growth of computing power and expansion of private sector data about the population, the Census Bureau has valid concerns about confidentiality threats to public data. The current plan for fully synthetic data, however, threatens a cornerstone of the nation's scientific infrastructure. Census microdata samples are among the most frequently used sources in social science research, and they are an essential tool for policy formation and planning from the local to the national level. Synthetic census microdata are not suitable for most research and policy applications. There have been no recent attempts to quantify disclosure risk in the ACS microdata, and the sole existing study failed to establish a credible threat for positive identification of ACS respondents by external intruders. I argue that we need new empirical research to pinpoint specific vulnerabilities that could allow an intruder to determine a particular individual's confidential census responses. If significant vulnerabilities are uncovered, the Census Bureau in partnership with the research community should develop targeted methods for disclosure risk reduction that minimize damage to data usability.

Indexed as

CensusesConfidentialityHumansUnited Statescensus microdatadata accessdata disclosure risk

Identifiers

PMID40048290
PMCPMC11929432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.