↓ Skip to main content

Privacy-preserving GWAS analysis on federated genomic datasets

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Privacy-preserving GWAS analysis on federated genomic datasets
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-15-s5-s2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott D Constable, Yuzhe Tang, Shuang Wang, Xiaoqian Jiang, Steve Chapin

Abstract

The biomedical community benefits from the increasing availability of genomic data to support meaningful scientific research, e.g., Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). However, high quality GWAS usually requires a large amount of samples, which can grow beyond the capability of a single institution. Federated genomic data analysis holds the promise of enabling cross-institution collaboration for effective GWAS, but it raises concerns about patient privacy and medical information confidentiality (as data are being exchanged across institutional boundaries), which becomes an inhibiting factor for the practical use. We present a privacy-preserving GWAS framework on federated genomic datasets. Our method is to layer the GWAS computations on top of secure multi-party computation (MPC) systems. This approach allows two parties in a distributed system to mutually perform secure GWAS computations, but without exposing their private data outside. We demonstrate our technique by implementing a framework for minor allele frequency counting and χ2 statistics calculation, one of typical computations used in GWAS. For efficient prototyping, we use a state-of-the-art MPC framework, i.e., Portable Circuit Format (PCF) 1. Our experimental results show promise in realizing both efficient and secure cross-institution GWAS computations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 28%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 19 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#16,446,399
of 24,220,739 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,376
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,193
of 398,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#33
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,220,739 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.