Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40603887›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Practical and ready-to-use methodology to assess the re-identification risk in anonymized datasets.

Louis Philippe Sondeck, Maryline Laurent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Louis Philippe Sondeck *COACHMESEC Consulting (Clever Identity), 151 rue des Meuniers, Bagneux, 92220, France.
Maryline Laurent *Samovar, Télécom SudParis, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, 19 Place Marguerite Perey, Palaiseau, 91120, France. maryline.laurent@telecom-sudparis.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anonymized datasetPrivacyPrivacy impact assessmentRe-identification risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40603887
PMCPMC12222771

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.