↓ Skip to main content

Some methods for blindfolded record linkage

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Some methods for blindfolded record linkage
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, June 2004
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-4-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Churches, Peter Christen

Abstract

The linkage of records which refer to the same entity in separate data collections is a common requirement in public health and biomedical research. Traditionally, record linkage techniques have required that all the identifying data in which links are sought be revealed to at least one party, often a third party. This necessarily invades personal privacy and requires complete trust in the intentions of that party and their ability to maintain security and confidentiality. Dusserre, Quantin, Bouzelat and colleagues have demonstrated that it is possible to use secure one-way hash transformations to carry out follow-up epidemiological studies without any party having to reveal identifying information about any of the subjects - a technique which we refer to as "blindfolded record linkage". A limitation of their method is that only exact comparisons of values are possible, although phonetic encoding of names and other strings can be used to allow for some types of typographical variation and data errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Brazil 2 3%
Ireland 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 65 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Master 11 14%
Other 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 29 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 11 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,952,709
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#230
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,773
of 54,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 54,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them