Protecting anonymity in data-driven biomedical science
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), ISSN: 1611-3349, Vol: 8401, Page: 301-316
2014
- 19Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
With formidable recent improvements in data processing and information retrieval, knowledge discovery/data mining, business intelligence, content analytics and other upcoming empirical approaches have an enormous potential, particularly for the data intensive biomedical sciences. For results derived using empirical methods, the underlying data set should be made available, at least during the review process for the reviewers, to ensure the quality of the research done and to prevent fraud or errors and to enable the replication of studies. However, in particular in the medicine and the life sciences, this leads to a discrepancy, as the disclosure of research data raises considerable privacy concerns, as researchers have of course the full responsibility to protect their (volunteer) subjects, hence must adhere to respective ethical policies. One solution for this problem lies in the protection of sensitive information in medical data sets by applying appropriate anonymization. This paper provides an overview on the most important and well-researched approaches and discusses open research problems in this area, with the goal to act as a starting point for further investigation.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84905255758&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5_17; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5_17; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5_17; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5_17; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-43968-5_17
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know