ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Sharing digital health data responsibly: Balancing open science with participant privacy.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sharing is essential for modern science, advancing transparency, reproducibility, and discovery. Emerging evidence shows that certain digital health data, particularly high-frequency accelerometry from body-worn sensors, carry re-identification risks even when de-identified. In 2023, the National Institutes of Health published its Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy formalizing a commitment to openness by requiring all funded researchers to share scientific data. However, the policy did not anticipate that raw motion signals collected by wearable devices can function as biometric identifiers. The WristPrint study demonstrated that a single day of raw accelerometry data could be used to re-identify individuals with 96% accuracy. Related research in gait detection shows that as few as ten steps may be enough to uniquely identify someone. These findings highlight gaps in current data sharing policies and the need for tailored guidance. We argue that policy updates, enforceable data use agreements, and educational initiatives are essential to align openness with protection. The path forward is not to retreat from data sharing but to share more wisely, safeguarding participant trust while sustaining scientific progress.
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.