4.4 Article

Measuring the impact of spatial perturbations on the relationship between data privacy and validity of descriptive statistics

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12942-020-00256-8

关键词

Geomasking; Privacy; Spatial anonymity; Reproducibility

资金

  1. Targeted Research Training Program through the University of Michigan Center for Occupational Health & Safety Engineering (COHSE)
  2. rOpenSci foundation
  3. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U01 IP00113801-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the impact of different data perturbation methods on spatial statistics and patient privacy, finding that random perturbation, donut masking, and Voronoi masking better maintained the validity of descriptive spatial statistics. However, none of the perturbation methods fully adhered to the HIPAA standard, suggesting further research is needed to explore alternate methods for balancing spatial data privacy and preservation of key patterns.
Background: Like many scientific fields, epidemiology is addressing issues of research reproducibility. Spatial epidemiology, which often uses the inherently identifiable variable of participant address, must balance reproducibility with participant privacy. In this study, we assess the impact of several different data perturbation methods on key spatial statistics and patient privacy. Methods: We analyzed the impact of perturbation on spatial patterns in the full set of address-level mortality data from Lawrence, MA during the period from 1911 to 1913. The original death locations were perturbed using seven different published approaches to stochastic and deterministic spatial data anonymization. Key spatial descriptive statistics were calculated for each perturbation, including changes in spatial pattern center, Global Moran's I, Local Moran's I, distance to the k-th nearest neighbors, and the L-function (a normalized form of Ripley's K). A spatially adapted form of k-anonymity was used to measure the privacy protection conferred by each method, and its compliance with HIPAA and GDPR privacy standards. Results: Random perturbation at 50 m, donut masking between 5 and 50 m, and Voronoi masking maintain the validity of descriptive spatial statistics better than other perturbations. Grid center masking with both 100 x 100 and 250 x 250 m cells led to large changes in descriptive spatial statistics. None of the perturbation methods adhered to the HIPAA standard that all points have a k-anonymity > 10. All other perturbation methods employed had at least 265 points, or over 6%, not adhering to the HIPAA standard. Conclusions: Using the set of published perturbation methods applied in this analysis, HIPAA and GDPR compliant de-identification was not compatible with maintaining key spatial patterns as measured by our chosen summary statistics. Further research should investigate alternate methods to balancing tradeoffs between spatial data privacy and preservation of key patterns in public health data that are of scientific and medical importance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据