ArticleDigital health
Identifying patient-level data risks in trusted research environments: Worked examples with synthetic data.
Article in Digital health. 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
Objective: This study examined and illustrated real-world risks of unintended patient-level data egress from Trusted Research Environments (TREs) and Secure Data Environments (SDEs), using synthetic data to recreate cases encountered in PIONEER, the HDR UK Hub in Acute Care. Methods: Synthetic datasets with demographics and NEWS2 vital signs were created using SciPy and NumPy for two fictitious populations. These datasets were transformed for machine-learning and embedded into various formats to simulate potential egress scenarios. Three worked examples include binary serialisation of data, binary serialisation of complex objects, and plain text mark-up reports. Results: Initial screening of exported files included checking reported sizes. While absolute size alone cannot confirm patient-level data, unusually large files can signal the need for closer inspection. In several cases, this prompted manual review that uncovered sensitive information. File size is therefore a useful signal within a layered egress checking process, not a diagnostic measure. Standard tools like Python or R do not warn of hidden data, reinforcing the need for explicit egress policies and independent verification. Converting binary formats only works for recognized code libraries and requires ongoing maintenance. Manual inspection alongside automation remains essential to identify and remove embedded data. Conclusion: These cases highlight the complexities in identifying and preventing identifiable data egress from TREs. Key insights include clear guidance for researchers, the limitations of binary serialisation for egress due to security vulnerabilities, and the importance of plain-text data exports for ease of verification.
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.