MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Privacy-preserving federated genome-wide association studies via dynamic sampling

2023· article· en· W4387796811 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyue Wang, Leonard Dervishi, Wentao Li, Erman Ayday, Xiaoqian Jiang, Jaideep Vaidya

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonCisco SystemsNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthCancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Data miningSource codeGenome-wide association studyData sharingSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) benefit from the increasing availability of genomic data and cross-institution collaborations. However, sharing data across institutional boundaries jeopardizes medical data confidentiality and patient privacy. While modern cryptographic techniques provide formal secure guarantees, the substantial communication and computational overheads hinder the practical application of large-scale collaborative GWAS. RESULTS: This work introduces an efficient framework for conducting collaborative GWAS on distributed datasets, maintaining data privacy without compromising the accuracy of the results. We propose a novel two-step strategy aimed at reducing communication and computational overheads, and we employ iterative and sampling techniques to ensure accurate results. We instantiate our approach using logistic regression, a commonly used statistical method for identifying associations between genetic markers and the phenotype of interest. We evaluate our proposed methods using two real genomic datasets and demonstrate their robustness in the presence of between-study heterogeneity and skewed phenotype distributions using a variety of experimental settings. The empirical results show the efficiency and applicability of the proposed method and the promise for its application for large-scale collaborative GWAS. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code and data are available at https://github.com/amioamo/TDS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207