ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Quantifying the effects of pseudonymisation on epidemiological research reliability: a tailored evaluation using a clinical data warehouse.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) hold immense potential for advancing medical research, but protecting patient privacy remains a critical challenge. Consequently, the choice of privacy-enhancing techniques must take into account the downstream analyses to preserve relevant data properties, often resulting in a trade-off between data utility and privacy. We aimed to evaluate different pseudonymisation algorithms and their impact in the context of six representative archetypal electronic health record epidemiological studies. This work seeks to empower Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW) stakeholders to make informed decisions that minimise privacy risks while ensuring information utility.
methodsWe simulated various re-identification attempts conducted by an attacker with legitimate access to cohorts contained in the CDW of the Greater Paris University Hospitals. The dataset comprised 3,950,145 hospitalisation records with an admission between August 1st, 2017 and April 1st, 2024. We considered minimisation and pseudonymisation schemes with different parameterisations, randomly shifting the timestamps of the delivered data while preserving different degrees of temporal coherence among them. The impact of these techniques was assessed both on reliability of six representative archetypal epidemiological studies and on records uniqueness. Two attack scenarios were considered: a random-target attack and a target-in-cohort attack. Advantages and limitations of the different schemes were compared according to the specific requirements of the considered studies.
resultsAttack success rates varied widely – ranging from a median of 0.9% [IQR: 0.3%-9.4%] in the random-target scenario to 99% [IQR: 86%-100%] in the target-in-cohort scenario – with minimisation accounting for most of this variability. Although less effective, pseudonymisation provided an additional reduction in re-identification risk. However, achieving low uniqueness required substantial modifications to temporal coherence, compromising the reliability of certain epidemiological statistics.
conclusionsPseudonymisation must therefore be combined with other solutions, in particular data minimisation, to provide optimal privacy protection within CDWs. Our findings highlight the need for tailored data protection strategies that align with specific study objectives to preserve data utility for epidemiological research. Our findings will help Institutional Review Boards and CDW governance bodies and teams in making informed decisions to mitigate privacy risks while maintaining information utility.
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.