ArticleProceedings. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. Workshops2015
One Size Doesn't Fit All: Measuring Individual Privacy in Aggregate Genomic Data.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. Workshops, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstructing Genotypes in Private Genomic Databases from Genetic Risk Scores.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2021Article
- Protecting Genomic Data Privacy with Probabilistic Modeling.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2019Article
- Enabling Privacy-Preserving GWASs in Heterogeneous Human Populations.Cell systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Even in the aggregate, genomic data can reveal sensitive information about individuals. We present a new model-based measure, PrivMAF, that provides provable privacy guarantees for aggregate data (namely minor allele frequencies) obtained from genomic studies. Unlike many previous measures that have been designed to measure the total privacy lost by all participants in a study, PrivMAF gives an individual privacy measure for each participant in the study, not just an average measure. These individual measures can then be combined to measure the worst case privacy loss in the study. Our measure also allows us to quantify the privacy gains achieved by perturbing the data, either by adding noise or binning. Our findings demonstrate that both perturbation approaches offer significant privacy gains. Moreover, we see that these privacy gains can be achieved while minimizing perturbation (and thus maximizing the utility) relative to stricter notions of privacy, such as differential privacy. We test PrivMAF using genotype data from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, providing a more nuanced understanding of the privacy risks involved in an actual genome-wide association studies. Interestingly, our analysis demonstrates that the privacy implications of releasing MAFs from a study can differ greatly from individual to individual. An implementation of our method is available at http://privmaf.csail.mit.edu.
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.