Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211009›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2026

Enabling the analysis of patient-level data across jurisdictions for research use: a real-world exploration of a federated likelihood approach.

Megan Harmon, Na Li, Tolulope Sajobi, Jessalyn Holodinsky, Tyler Williamson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of population data science, 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

5 authors.

Megan HarmonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Na LiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Tolulope SajobiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jessalyn HolodinskyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Tyler WilliamsonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The disclosure of health data is governed by strict privacy regulations which significantly restrict the transfer of data across jurisdictions. These limitations restrict the scope of health research, particularly the ability to conduct studies that span multiple jurisdictions (e.g. provinces, states, or countries). One common practice is to use meta-analysis to pool jurisdiction-specific estimates. However, this approach relies on combining aggregate-level data, which may overlook important nuances. Therefore, alternative methods are needed. This study investigates the potential of a federated likelihood approach to analyse health data across jurisdictions while keeping the data inside the jurisdiction. Objectives: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of the meta-analysis technique in pooling jurisdiction-specific results to produce overall estimates (2) assess the utility of a federated likelihood approach for interjurisdictional health data analysis; and (3) compare the performance of a federated likelihood method with the conventional meta-analysis approach. Methods: Log-likelihood functions from separate jurisdictions were directly combined to form a single overall log-likelihood function, and overall parameter estimates. We show that these parameter estimates are mathematically equivalent to those obtained from analysing the pooled individual-level data. Using data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network, and using chronic kidney disease as a case study, estimates from five jurisdictions are combined using meta-analysis and the federated likelihood approach. These results are compared to the overall estimates from a global model. Result: The likelihood method demonstrated strong performance in analysing federated data, yielding the lowest relative percent absolute bias at 1.34%. This was notably lower than the bias observed with the common effect meta-analysis (4.09%). Conclusion: The federated likelihood method offers a promising approach to interjurisdictional health data analysis. However, further investigation is needed to assess its feasibility across different model types and model complexity to fully understand the scope of its utility.

Indexed as

Health Information ManagementLikelihood FunctionsMeta-Analysis as TopicFederated LearningHumansfederated analysislikelihood functionsmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID42211009
PMCPMC13213896

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.