↓ Skip to main content

Methods for the de-identification of electronic health records for genomic research

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, January 2011
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Methods for the de-identification of electronic health records for genomic research
Published in
Genome Medicine, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/gm239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khaled El Emam

Abstract

Electronic health records are increasingly being linked to DNA repositories and used as a source of clinical information for genomic research. Privacy legislation in many jurisdictions, and most research ethics boards, require that either personal health information is de-identified or that patient consent or authorization is sought before the data are disclosed for secondary purposes. Here, I discuss how de-identification has been applied in current genomic research projects. Recent metrics and methods that can be used to ensure that the risk of re-identification is low and that disclosures are compliant with privacy legislation and regulations (such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule) are reviewed. Although these methods can protect against the known approaches for re-identification, residual risks and specific challenges for genomic research are also discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Canada 2 3%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 69 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 26 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 31 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,241,716
of 14,079,326 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#343
of 987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,312
of 207,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,079,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 207,332 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.