ArticleScientific reports2025
Practical and ready-to-use methodology to assess the re-identification risk in anonymized datasets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proposal of a procedure to stratify the reidentification risk of medical data: RIMEDA.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Autoencoder-Enhanced Hierarchical Mondrian Anonymization via Latent Representations.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To prove that a dataset is sufficiently anonymized, many privacy policies suggest that a re-identification risk assessment be performed, but do not provide a precise methodology for doing so, leaving the industry alone with the problem. This paper proposes a practical and ready-to-use methodology for re-identification risk assessment, the originality of which is manifold: (1) it is the first to follow well-known risk analysis methods (e.g. EBIOS) that have been used in the cybersecurity field for years, which consider not only the ability to perform an attack, but also the severity such an attack can have on an individual; (2) it is the first to qualify attributes and values of attributes with e.g. degree of exposure, as known real-world attacks mainly target certain types of attributes and not others; (3) it is the first to provide clear, comprehensible criteria and interpretable, explainable assessment results. In addition, the fine granularity of the methodology makes it possible to score the risk as accurately as possible, and thus maintain good data quality at an acceptable risk, which is very promising for the AI industrial sector. Finally, the implementation of the methodology is illustrated using the publicly available Adult dataset, which was assessed as having a critical risk of re-identification, with 14 concrete cases of individualization.
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.