@J-J-J I understand your reaon to close, but the close reason displayed is simply wrong. "Not about statistics"? It is, and can probably be answered. See for instance pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.97.22.11885

@kjetilbhalvorsen Agreed, and besides the ethical issue, I find the statistical problem interesting. When voting to close, I chose "a community specific reason > other - add a comment", and wrote the comment that still appears in the comment section. But once the question was closed, the closure message displayed the "not about statistics" reason, which surprised me and indeed does not describe correctly the actual reason for closing. Is there a way to fix the message?

@J-J-J Unfortunately not. Indeed, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule that the posted close message accurately conveys the close reason. What you did by commenting is about the best we can accomplish.

@kjetilbhalvorsen Agreed too. Perhaps there's room to ask another version of this question that would not put identification risks on individuals in this dataset, but I'm not so sure about it. It's a good thing to have fresh views and suggestions on it, and maybe I'll leave the discussion here for my part. // As an anecdote, I found a somehow similar discussion on academia.SE in this answer and its comments, with some divided views: academia.stackexchange.com/a/182616/165748