ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2011
Participant identification in genetic association studies: improved methods and practical implications.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Privacy Vulnerabilities in Genetic Data Sets: Scoping Review.JMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019Article
- Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.Human genomics · 2018Article
- Sharing extended summary data from contemporary genetics studies is unlikely to threaten subject privacy.PloS one · 2017Article
- Gene and Network Analysis of Common Variants Reveals Novel Associations in Multiple Complex Diseases.Genetics · 2016Article
- Addressing Benefits, Risks and Consent in Next Generation Sequencing Studies.Journal of clinical research & bioethics · 2015Article
- Privacy in the Genomic Era.ACM computing surveys · 2015Article
- Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- Scalable privacy-preserving data sharing methodology for genome-wide association studies.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
- Bayesian Network Construction and Genotype-Phenotype Inference Using GWAS Statistics.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
- Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing for Genome-Wide Association Studies.The Journal of privacy and confidentialityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a recent paper by Homer et al. (Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000167), a method for detecting whether a given individual is a contributor to a particular genomic mixture was proposed. This prompted grave concern about the public dissemination of aggregate statistics from genome-wide association studies. It is of clear scientific importance that such data be shared widely, but the confidentiality of study participants must not be compromised. The issue of what summary genomic data can safely be posted on the web is only addressed satisfactorily when the theoretical underpinnings of the proposed method are clarified and its performance evaluated in terms of dependence on underlying assumptions.
methodsThe original method raised a number of concerns and several alternatives have since been proposed, including a simple linear regression approach. In our proposed generalized estimating equation approach, we maintain the simplicity of the linear regression model but obtain inferences that are more robust to approximation of the variance/covariance structure and can accommodate linkage disequilibrium.
resultsWe affirm that, in principle, it is possible to determine that a 'candidate' individual has participated in a study, given a subset of aggregate statistics from that study. However, the methods depend critically on a number of key factors including: the ancestry of participants in the study; the absolute and relative numbers of cases and controls; and the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms.
conclusionsSimple guidelines for publication that are based on a single criterion are therefore unlikely to suffice. In particular, 'directed' summary statistics should not be posted openly on the web but could be protected by an internet-based access check as proposed by the P3G_Consortium et al. (Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet 2009;5:e1000665).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.