IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of anonymization techniques regarding statistical reproducibility

Author

Listed:
  • David Pau
  • Camille Bachot
  • Charles Monteil
  • Laetitia Vinet
  • Mathieu Boucher
  • Nadir Sella
  • Romain Jegou

Abstract

Background: Anonymization opens up innovative ways of using secondary data without the requirements of the GDPR, as anonymized data does not affect anymore the privacy of data subjects. Anonymization requires data alteration, and this project aims to compare the ability of such privacy protection methods to maintain reliability and utility of scientific data for secondary research purposes. Methods: The French data protection authority (CNIL) defines anonymization as a processing activity that consists of using methods to make impossible any identification of people by any means in an irreversible manner. To answer project’s objective, a series of analyses were performed on a cohort, and reproduced on four sets of anonymized data for comparison. Four assessment levels were used to evaluate impact of anonymization: level 1 referred to the replication of statistical outputs, level 2 referred to accuracy of statistical results, level 3 assessed data alteration (using Hellinger distances) and level 4 assessed privacy risks (using WP29 criteria). Results: 87 items were produced on the raw cohort data and then reproduced on each of the four anonymized data. The overall level 1 replication score ranged from 67% to 100% depending on the anonymization solution. The most difficult analyses to replicate were regression models (sub-score ranging from 78% to 100%) and survival analysis (sub-score ranging from 0% to 100. The overall level 2 accuracy score ranged from 22% to 79% depending on the anonymization solution. For level 3, three methods had some variables with different probability distributions (Hellinger distance = 1). For level 4, all methods had reduced the privacy risk of singling out, with relative risk reductions ranging from 41% to 65%. Conclusion: None of the anonymization methods reproduced all outputs and results. A trade-off has to be find between context risk and the usefulness of data to answer the research question. Author summary: Anonymization is a processing of personal data to generate anonymous synthetic data. This project aimed to evaluate the capability of anonymization methods in maintaining reliability and utility of scientific data for research purposes, by comparing the impact of four different anonymization methods. The comparison of 4 anonymization methods is the novelty of this work and provides insight into the statistical and scientific value that remained. We found that no anonymized data reproduced accurately all results and these methods are not currently powerful enough for use in regulatory submissions. We also found that there is a lack of standardized privacy metrics to comprehensively evaluate and compare the effectiveness of anonymization techniques. As one size does not fit all, we strongly recommend the design of anonymization algorithms to be align with the data reuse objectives (e.g. open data, internal reuse or reuse by a unique external researcher).

Suggested Citation

  • David Pau & Camille Bachot & Charles Monteil & Laetitia Vinet & Mathieu Boucher & Nadir Sella & Romain Jegou, 2025. "Comparison of anonymization techniques regarding statistical reproducibility," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000735
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000735
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000735&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000735?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.