MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412568039 · doi:10.1109/ichi64645.2025.00032

Privacy Preservation Embedding-Based Clustering for Population Stratification Using Large Language Models

2025· article· en· W4412568039 on OpenAlexafffund
Reem Al-Saidi, Ziad Kobti, Thorsten Strufe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceEmbeddingStratification (seeds)Population stratificationData miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing population stratification is crucial in Genome wide association Studies (GWAS) since genetic differences tied to ancestry can confound such studies and introduce bias if not adequately managed. In this context, clustering methods are essential, enabling the accurate grouping of genetically similar individuals. However, due to the complexity and volume of genomic data, traditional clustering struggles and dimensionality reduction techniques often fail to retain key biological insights for proper analysis. This work uses a genome-specific large language model, DNABERT-S, to create embeddings for the 1000 Genomes population dataset to assess the effectiveness of the embedding when used in the clustering. The embeddings preserve the critical biological features, contextual meaning, and relationships encoded in the genomic sequences, which were clustered using K-means to analyze population-level patterns. Reconstruction attacks target embeddings produced by large language models in the natural language processing (NLP) domain. These attacks can also target genomic embeddings, which poses significant privacy concerns. To investigate this, we analyze how genomic embeddings are susceptible to reconstruction attacks, and we use differential privacy (DP) on mean embedding to mitigate such risk. Our findings demonstrate that differential privacy helps reduce the risk of reconstruction attacks while preserving utility; however, it does not entirely eliminate the attack.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational and Text Analysis MethodsFrench-language works237,207