ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Proposal of a procedure to stratify the reidentification risk of medical data: RIMEDA.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine medical data are highly valuable for secondary use, and data sharing is a prerequisite for pioneering research. Furthermore, since the advent of artificial intelligence and its application in various medical fields, such as decision-making and pharmacovigilance, the demand for real-world training data has steadily increased. However, the associated privacy risk, especially concerning reidentification, is extremely sensitive, and we are currently unaware of any standardised method to quantify it comprehensively.
methodsAssessing the reidentification risk of a data collection under examination requires the consideration and analysis of a complex system. To develop a holistic framework for stratifying this risk, an integrative approach is followed where the risk of deanonymisation is not considered mono-causally but includes various aspects. On the basis of a systematic literature review, factors and corresponding risks that are decisive in reidentification attacks are identified. These factors are grouped into overarching perspectives, and evaluation criteria are developed, facilitating the systematic grading of each risk factor by a data controller. Interactions between factors are visualised in entity‒relationship models (ERMs), and their direction and supposed magnitude are quantified in an influence matrix. Finally, on the basis of this matrix, a risk score and different indices are generated to evaluate the reidentification risk and facilitate possible countermeasures.
resultsThe reidentification risk comprises four general perspectives regarding data, knowledge, potential attackers, and technical/organisational aspects. The ERMs represent a complex system of clear interconnections between the factors of the respective perspectives. The final calculation is performed in the influence matrix based on the assessment of the data controller. The derivable indices and visualisations provide indications of particularly risk-driving components of a dataset and thus for targeted safety measures, such as generalisation, suppression and randomisation approaches. Experiments to determine the functionality of the method via published and verified reidentification attacks confirm the plausibility and selectivity of risk stratification.
conclusionA quantitative assessment of the reidentification risk of a medical dataset, including the identification of risk drivers, is necessary and feasible. The proposed prototype must be further evaluated and will serve as the basis for the development of a software application.
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.