↓ Skip to main content

Utility-preserving anonymization for health data publishing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Utility-preserving anonymization for health data publishing
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0499-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyukki Lee, Soohyung Kim, Jong Wook Kim, Yon Dohn Chung

Abstract

Publishing raw electronic health records (EHRs) may be considered as a breach of the privacy of individuals because they usually contain sensitive information. A common practice for the privacy-preserving data publishing is to anonymize the data before publishing, and thus satisfy privacy models such as k-anonymity. Among various anonymization techniques, generalization is the most commonly used in medical/health data processing. Generalization inevitably causes information loss, and thus, various methods have been proposed to reduce information loss. However, existing generalization-based data anonymization methods cannot avoid excessive information loss and preserve data utility. We propose a utility-preserving anonymization for privacy preserving data publishing (PPDP). To preserve data utility, the proposed method comprises three parts: (1) utility-preserving model, (2) counterfeit record insertion, (3) catalog of the counterfeit records. We also propose an anonymization algorithm using the proposed method. Our anonymization algorithm applies full-domain generalization algorithm. We evaluate our method in comparison with existence method on two aspects, information loss measured through various quality metrics and error rate of analysis result. With all different types of quality metrics, our proposed method show the lower information loss than the existing method. In the real-world EHRs analysis, analysis results show small portion of error between the anonymized data through the proposed method and original data. We propose a new utility-preserving anonymization method and an anonymization algorithm using the proposed method. Through experiments on various datasets, we show that the utility of EHRs anonymized by the proposed method is significantly better than those anonymized by previous approaches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 25 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 20 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Engineering 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 30 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,936,681
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#404
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,301
of 325,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 325,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.