Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24805122›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2014

Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy.

Yaniv Erlich, Arvind Narayanan

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 150 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Privacy-preserving pangenome graphs.Nature communications · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Methods for safely sharing dual-use genetic data.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yaniv ErlichWhitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Nine Cambridge Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, USA.
Arvind NarayananDepartment of Computer Science, Princeton University, 35 Olden Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.

Funding

Hunting Rare Human Variations using DNA SudokuR21HG006167 · NHGRI · WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RES · PI ERLICH, YANIV · 2011 to 2012
$585k
NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG006167NHGRI NIH HHS R21HG006167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are entering an era of ubiquitous genetic information for research, clinical care and personal curiosity. Sharing these data sets is vital for progress in biomedical research. However, a growing concern is the ability to protect the genetic privacy of the data originators. Here, we present an overview of genetic privacy breaching strategies. We outline the principles of each technique, indicate the underlying assumptions, and assess their technological complexity and maturation. We then review potential mitigation methods for privacy-preserving dissemination of sensitive data and highlight different cases that are relevant to genetic applications.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityGenetic PrivacyGenetics, MedicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID24805122
PMCPMC4151119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.