ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Re-identification risk for common privacy preserving patient matching strategies when shared with de-identified demographics.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectivePrivacy preserving record linkage (PPRL) refers to techniques used to identify which records refer to the same person across disparate datasets while safeguarding their identities. PPRL is increasingly relied upon to facilitate biomedical research. A common strategy encodes personally identifying information for comparison without disclosing underlying identifiers. As the scale of research datasets expands, it becomes crucial to reassess the privacy risks associated with these encodings. This paper highlights the potential re-identification risks of some of these encodings, demonstrating an attack that exploits encoding repetition across patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe attack leverages repeated PPRL encoding values combined with common demographics shared during PPRL in the clear (e.g., 3-digit ZIP code) to distinguish encodings from one another and ultimately link them to identities in a reference dataset. Using US Census statistics and voter registries, we empirically estimate encodings' re-identification risk against such an attack, while varying multiple factors that influence the risk.
resultsRe-identification risk for PPRL encodings increases with population size, number of distinct encodings per patient, and amount of demographic information available. Commonly used encodings typically grow from <1% re-identification rate for datasets under one million individuals to 10%-20% for 250 million individuals. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionRe-identification risk often remains low in smaller populations, but increases significantly at the larger scales increasingly encountered today. These risks are common in many PPRL implementations, although, as our work shows, they are avoidable. Choosing better tokens or matching tokens through a third party without the underlying demographics effectively eliminates these risks.
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.