↓ Skip to main content

On the privacy risks of sharing clinical proteomics data.

Overview of attention for article published in AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 276)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
On the privacy risks of sharing clinical proteomics data.
Published in
AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, August 2016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sujun Li, Nuno Bandeira, Xiaofeng Wang, Haixu Tang

Abstract

Although the privacy issues in human genomic studies are well known, the privacy risks in clinical proteomic data have not been thoroughly studied. As a proof of concept, we reported a comprehensive analysis of the privacy risks in clinical proteomic data. It showed that a small number of peptides carrying the minor alleles (referred to as the minor allelic peptides) at non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphism (nsSNP) sites can be identified in typical clinical proteomic datasets acquired from the blood/serum samples of individual patient, from which the patient can be identified with high confidence. Our results suggested the presence of significant privacy risks in raw clinical proteomic data. However, these risks can be mitigated by a straightforward pre-processing step of the raw data that removing a very small fraction (0.1%, 7.14 out of 7,504 spectra on average) of MS/MS spectra identified as the minor allelic peptides, which has little or no impact on the subsequent analysis (and re-use) of these datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Researcher 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Engineering 2 15%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,761,537
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings
#27
of 276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,770
of 348,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 348,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.