. We designed a custom assessment tool for study quality and risk of bias assessments. 64 studies were classified as high quality and eight as moderate quality, and we did not detect any bias in any of the included studies. Correct identification rates were typically 86–100%, indicating a high risk of reidentification. Additionally, as little as 1–300 s of recording were required to enable reidentification from sensors that are generally not thought to generate identifiable information, such as electrocardiograms. These findings call for concerted efforts to rethink methods for data sharing to promote advances in research innovation while preventing the loss of individual privacy.
