henhaobio
Sign in
Citations
8

Abstract

In a recently published PNAS article, we studied the identifiability of genomic samples using machine learning methods [Lippert et al., 2017]. In a response, Erlich [2017] argued that our work contained major flaws. The main technical critique of Erlich [2017] builds on a simulation experiment that shows that our proposed algorithm, which uses only a genomic sample for identification, performed no better than a strategy that uses demographic variables. Below, we show why this comparison is misleading and provide a detailed discussion of the key critical points in our analyses that have been brought up in Erlich [2017] and in the media. Further, not only faces may be derived from DNA, but a wide range of phenotypes and demographic variables. In this light, the main contribution of Lippert et al. [2017] is an algorithm that identifies genomes of individuals by combining multiple DNA-based predictive models for a myriad of traits.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISErlich '17Cavinato '26Shemirani '21Naret '20Gokhman '25Köksal '25
69% semantic matchGenomics
Yaniv Erlich·bioRxiv·Sep 7, 2017· 19 citations