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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Estimating the re-identification risk of clinical data sets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-66 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fida Kamal Dankar, Khaled El Emam, Angelica Neisa, Tyson Roffey |
| Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| India | 2 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Other | 13 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 43 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 29 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,118,783
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#40
of 2,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,828
of 170,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 170,711 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.