Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22158671›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2011

Participant identification in genetic association studies: improved methods and practical implications.

Nicholas Masca, Paul R Burton, Nuala A Sheehan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing.Expert review of precision medicine and drug development · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Privacy in the Genomic Era.ACM computing surveys · 2015
    Article
  8. Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Bayesian Network Construction and Genotype-Phenotype Inference Using GWAS Statistics.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicholas MascaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Paul R Burton
Nuala A Sheehan

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/06/040Medical Research Council G0000934Medical Research Council G0601625Medical Research Council G1001799Wellcome Trust 068545/Z/02Wellcome Trust 076113Wellcome Trust 086160/Z/08/A
6 · The paper itself

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

Ethics, ResearchGenetic PrivacyResearch DesignCohort StudiesGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHuman ExperimentationHumansLinear ModelsPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID22158671
PMCPMC3235023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.