ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
A data-driven approach to choosing privacy parameters for clinical trial data sharing under differential privacy.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications and challenges of biomarker-based predictive models in proactive health management.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Improving Large Language Model Applications in the Medical and Nursing Domains With Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- An empirical assessment of differential privacy in real-world observational data: a case-control study of asthma exacerbation in UK Biobank linked with electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClinical trial data sharing is crucial for promoting transparency and collaborative efforts in medical research. Differential privacy (DP) is a formal statistical technique for anonymizing shared data that balances privacy of individual records and accuracy of replicated results through a "privacy budget" parameter, ε. DP is considered the state of the art in privacy-protected data publication and is underutilized in clinical trial data sharing. This study is focused on identifying ε values for the sharing of clinical trial data. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed 2 clinical trial datasets with privacy budget ε ranging from 0.01 to 10. Smaller values of ε entail adding greater amounts of random noise, with better privacy as a result. Comparison of rates, odds ratios, means, and mean differences between the original clinical trial datasets and the empirical distribution of the DP estimator was performed.
resultsThe DP rate closely approximated the original rate of 6.5% when ε > 1. The DP odds ratio closely aligned with the original odds ratio of 0.689 when ε ≥ 3. The DP mean closely approximated the original mean of 164.64 when ε ≥ 1. As ε increased to 5, both the minimum and maximum DP means converged toward the original mean. DISCUSSION: There is no consensus on how to choose the privacy budget ε. The definition of DP does not specify the required level of privacy, and there is no established formula for determining ε.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the application of DP holds promise in the context of sharing clinical trial data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.