Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2012

Estimating the re-identification risk of clinical data sets

Zeitschrift:
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Fida Kamal Dankar, Khaled El Emam, Angelica Neisa, Tyson Roffey
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1472-6947-12-66) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

FD designed the study, interpreted the results, and contributed to writing the paper. KEE designed the study, contributed to the data analysis, interpreted the results, and contributed to writing the paper. AN performed the data analysis and contributed to writing the paper. TR contributed to interpreting the results and writing the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

De-identification is a common way to protect patient privacy when disclosing clinical data for secondary purposes, such as research. One type of attack that de-identification protects against is linking the disclosed patient data with public and semi-public registries. Uniqueness is a commonly used measure of re-identification risk under this attack. If uniqueness can be measured accurately then the risk from this kind of attack can be managed. In practice, it is often not possible to measure uniqueness directly, therefore it must be estimated.

Methods

We evaluated the accuracy of uniqueness estimators on clinically relevant data sets. Four candidate estimators were identified because they were evaluated in the past and found to have good accuracy or because they were new and not evaluated comparatively before: the Zayatz estimator, slide negative binomial estimator, Pitman’s estimator, and mu-argus. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to evaluate the uniqueness estimators on six clinically relevant data sets. We varied the sampling fraction and the uniqueness in the population (the value being estimated). The median relative error and inter-quartile range of the uniqueness estimates was measured across 1000 runs.

Results

There was no single estimator that performed well across all of the conditions. We developed a decision rule which selected between the Pitman, slide negative binomial and Zayatz estimators depending on the sampling fraction and the difference between estimates. This decision rule had the best consistent median relative error across multiple conditions and data sets.

Conclusion

This study identified an accurate decision rule that can be used by health privacy researchers and disclosure control professionals to estimate uniqueness in clinical data sets. The decision rule provides a reliable way to measure re-identification risk.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 2:Appendix B. Detailed Results.(PDF 211 KB)
12911_2011_521_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12911_2011_521_MOESM3_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 2
12911_2011_521_MOESM4_ESM.tiff
Authors’ original file for figure 3
12911_2011_521_MOESM5_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 4
12911_2011_521_MOESM6_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 5
12911_2011_521_MOESM7_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 6
12911_2011_521_MOESM8_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 7
12911_2011_521_MOESM9_ESM.jpeg
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe