A community effort to protect genomic data sharing, collaboration and outsourcing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human genome can reveal sensitive information and is potentially re-identifiable, which raises privacy and security concerns about sharing such data on wide scales. In 2016, we organized the third Critical Assessment of Data Privacy and Protection competition as a community effort to bring together biomedical informaticists, computer privacy and security researchers, and scholars in ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) to assess the latest advances on privacy-preserving techniques for protecting human genomic data. Teams were asked to develop novel protection methods for emerging genome privacy challenges in three scenarios: Track (1) data sharing through the Beacon service of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Track (2) collaborative discovery of similar genomes between two institutions; and Track (3) data outsourcing to public cloud services. The latter two tracks represent continuing themes from our 2015 competition, while the former was new and a response to a recently established vulnerability. The winning strategy for Track 1 mitigated the privacy risk by hiding approximately 11% of the variation in the database while permitting around 160,000 queries, a significant improvement over the baseline. The winning strategies in Tracks 2 and 3 showed significant progress over the previous competition by achieving multiple orders of magnitude performance improvement in terms of computational runtime and memory requirements. The outcomes suggest that applying highly optimized privacy-preserving and secure computation techniques to safeguard genomic data sharing and analysis is useful. However, the results also indicate that further efforts are needed to refine these techniques into practical solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".