Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42030303›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Sharing digital health data responsibly: Balancing open science with participant privacy.

Camille Nebeker, Shahin Samiei, Santosh Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Camille NebekerHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6819-1796
Shahin SamieiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2876-5837
Santosh KumarDepartment of Computer Science, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42030303
PMCPMC13108794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.