Enabling Privacy-Preserving GWAS in Heterogeneous Human Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The projected increase of genotyping in the clinic and the rise of large genomic databases has led to the possibility of using patient medical data to perform genomewide association studies (GWAS) on a larger scale and at a lower cost than ever before. Due to privacy concerns, however, access to this data is limited to a few trusted individuals, greatly reducing its impact on biomedical research. Privacy preserving methods have been suggested as a way of allowing more people access to this precious data while protecting patients. In particular, there has been growing interest in applying the concept of differential privacy to GWAS results. Unfortunately, previous approaches for performing differentially private GWAS are based on rather simple statistics that have some major limitations. In particular, they do not correct for population stratification, a major issue when dealing with the genetically diverse populations present in modern GWAS. To address this concern we introduce a novel computational framework for performing GWAS that tailors ideas from differential privacy to protect private phenotype information, while at the same time correcting for population stratification. This framework allows us to produce privacy preserving GWAS results based on two of the most commonly used GWAS statistics: EIGENSTRAT and linear mixed model (LMM) based statistics. We test our differentially private statistics, PrivSTRAT and PrivLMM, on both simulated and real GWAS datasets and find that they are able to protect privacy while returning meaningful GWAS results.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".