↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the risk of patient re-identification from adverse drug event reports

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2013
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Evaluating the risk of patient re-identification from adverse drug event reports
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Khaled El Emam, Fida K Dankar, Angelica Neisa, Elizabeth Jonker

Abstract

Our objective was to develop a model for measuring re-identification risk that more closely mimics the behaviour of an adversary by accounting for repeated attempts at matching and verification of matches, and apply it to evaluate the risk of re-identification for Canada's post-marketing adverse drug event database (ADE).Re-identification is only demonstrably plausible for deaths in ADE. A matching experiment between ADE records and virtual obituaries constructed from Statistics Canada vital statistics was simulated. A new re-identification risk is considered, it assumes that after gathering all the potential matches for a patient record (all records in the obituaries that are potential matches for an ADE record), an adversary tries to verify these potential matches. Two adversary scenarios were considered: (a) a mildly motivated adversary who will stop after one verification attempt, and (b) a highly motivated adversary who will attempt to verify all the potential matches and is only limited by practical or financial considerations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 27%
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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#3,029,228
of 23,706,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#227
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,046
of 209,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,706,350 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 2,027 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 209,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.