Critical Analysis of Privacy Risks in Machine Learning and Implications for Use of Health Data: A systematic review and meta-analysis on membership inference attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose. Machine learning(ML) has revolutionized data processing and analysis, with applications in health showing great promise. However, ML poses privacy risks, as models may reveal information about their training data. Developing frameworks to assess/mitigate privacy risks is essential, particularly for health data custodians responsible for adhering to ethical and legal standards in data use. In September 2022, we conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to estimate the relative effects of factors hypothesized to contribute to ML privacy risk, focusing on membership inference attacks (MIA). Methods. Papers were screened for relevance to MIA, and selected for the meta-analysis if they contained attack performance(AP) metrics for attacks on models trained on numeric data. Random effects regression was used to estimate the adjusted average change in AP by model type, generalization gap and the density of training data in each region of input space (partitioned density). Residual sum of squares was used to determine the importance of variables on AP. Results. The systematic review and meta-analysis included 115 and 42 papers, respectively, comprising 1,910 experiments. The average AP ranged from 61.0% (95%CI:60.0%-63.0%; AUC)-74.0% (95%CI:72.0%-76.0%; recall). Higher partitioned density was inversely associated with AP for all model architectures, with the largest effect on decision trees. Higher generalization gap was linked to increased AP, predominantly affecting neural networks. Partitioned density was a better predictor of AP than generalization gap for most architectures. Conclusions. This is the first quantitative synthesis of MIA experiments, that highlights the effect of dataset composition on AP, particularly on decision trees, which are commonly used in health.
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 | 0.103 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".