Dataset Information

Enabling realistic health data re-identification risk assessment through adversarial modeling.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Re-identification risk methods for biomedical data often assume a worst case, in which attackers know all identifiable features (eg, age and race) about a subject. Yet, worst-case adversarial modeling can overestimate risk and induce heavy editing of shared data. The objective of this study is to introduce a framework for assessing the risk considering the attacker's resources and capabilities.

Materials and methods

We integrate 3 established risk measures (ie, prosecutor, journalist, and marketer risks) and compute re-identification probabilities for data subjects. This probability is dependent on an attacker's capabilities (eg, ability to obtain external identified resources) and the subject's decision on whether to reveal their participation in a dataset. We illustrate the framework through case studies using data from over 1 000 000 patients from Vanderbilt University Medical Center and show how re-identification risk changes when attackers are pragmatic and use 2 known resources for attack: (1) voter registration lists and (2) social media posts.

Results

Our framework illustrates that the risk is substantially smaller in the pragmatic scenarios than in the worst case. Our experiments yield a median worst-case risk of 0.987 (where 0 is least risky and 1 is most risky); however, the median reduction in risk was 90.1% in the voter registration scenario and 100% in the social media posts scenario. Notably, these observations hold true for a wide range of adversarial capabilities.

Conclusions

This research illustrates that re-identification risk is situationally dependent and that appropriate adversarial modeling may permit biomedical data sharing on a wider scale than is currently the case.

SUBMITTER: Xia W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8711654 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrivacy legislation in most jurisdictions allows the disclosure of health data for secondary purposes without patient consent if it is de-identified. Some recent articles in the medical, legal, and computer science literature have argued that de-identification methods do not provide sufficient protection because they are easy to reverse. Should this be the case, it would have significant and important implications on how health information is disclosed, including: (a) potentially limiting its availability for secondary purposes such as research, and (b) resulting in more identifiable health information being disclosed. Our objectives in this systematic review were to: (a) characterize known re-identification attacks on health data and contrast that to re-identification attacks on other kinds of data, (b) compute the overall proportion of records that have been correctly re-identified in these attacks, and (c) assess whether these demonstrate weaknesses in current de-identification methods.Methods and findingsSearches were conducted in IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and PubMed. After screening, fourteen eligible articles representing distinct attacks were identified. On average, approximately a quarter of the records were re-identified across all studies (0.26 with 95% CI 0.046-0.478) and 0.34 for attacks on health data (95% CI 0-0.744). There was considerable uncertainty around the proportions as evidenced by the wide confidence intervals, and the mean proportion of records re-identified was sensitive to unpublished studies. Two of fourteen attacks were performed with data that was de-identified using existing standards. Only one of these attacks was on health data, which resulted in a success rate of 0.00013.ConclusionsThe current evidence shows a high re-identification rate but is dominated by small-scale studies on data that was not de-identified according to existing standards. This evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the efficacy of de-identification methods.