Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34648520›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A survey of U.S. public perspectives on facial recognition technology and facial imaging data practices in health and research contexts.

Sara H Katsanis, Peter Claes, Megan Doerr, Robert Cook-Deegan, Jessica D Tenenbaum, Barbara J Evans, Myoung Keun Lee, Joel Anderton, Seth M Weinberg, Jennifer K Wagner

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The future is yesterday: Use of AI-driven facial recognition to enhance value in the travel and tourism industry.Information systems frontiers : a journal of research and innovation · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. U.S. Adult Perspectives on Facial Images, DNA, and Other Biometrics.IEEE transactions on technology and society · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara H KatsanisMary Ann & J. Milburn Smith Child Health Outcomes, Research and Evaluation Center, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5044-8765
Peter ClaesDepartment of Electrical Engineering, ESAT/PSI, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Megan DoerrSage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Robert Cook-DeeganSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Jessica D TenenbaumDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Barbara J EvansLevin College of Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Myoung Keun LeeCenter for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, Department of Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Joel AndertonCenter for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, Department of Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Seth M WeinbergCenter for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, Department of Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jennifer K WagnerSchool of Engineering Design, Technology, and Professional Programs, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2278-0306
University of Pittsburgh · USDuke University · USInstitute for the Future · USKU Leuven · BENorthwestern University · USPennsylvania State University · USSage Bionetworks · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

The Genetic Architecture of Human Facial MorphologyR01DE027023 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CLAES, PETER, SHAFFER, JOHN R · 2017 to 2024
$5.2M
The Sulston Project: making the knowledge commons for interpreting cancer genomic variants more effectiveR01CA237118 · NCI · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI COOK-DEEGAN, ROBERT MULLAN, MCGUIRE, AMY L · 2019 to 2022
$2.4M
Federated Analysis in Cancer Genomics: Surveying the Social, Ethical, and Regulatory LandscapeU01CA242954 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ · PI CLINE, MELISSA SUZANNE · 2019 to 2021
$1.5M
Genomics, Biometrics and IdentityR01HG009923 · NHGRI · LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO · PI FARAHANY, NITA, HUSTON, SARA · 2018 to 2020
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA237118NCI NIH HHS U01 CA242954NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009923NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE027023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Facial imaging and facial recognition technologies, now common in our daily lives, also are increasingly incorporated into health care processes, enabling touch-free appointment check-in, matching patients accurately, and assisting with the diagnosis of certain medical conditions. The use, sharing, and storage of facial data is expected to expand in coming years, yet little is documented about the perspectives of patients and participants regarding these uses. We developed a pair of surveys to gather public perspectives on uses of facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and in health-related research in the United States. We used Qualtrics Panels to collect responses from general public respondents using two complementary and overlapping survey instruments; one focused on six types of biometrics (including facial images and DNA) and their uses in a wide range of societal contexts (including healthcare and research) and the other focused on facial imaging, facial recognition technology, and related data practices in health and research contexts specifically. We collected responses from a diverse group of 4,048 adults in the United States (2,038 and 2,010, from each survey respectively). A majority of respondents (55.5%) indicated they were equally worried about the privacy of medical records, DNA, and facial images collected for precision health research. A vignette was used to gauge willingness to participate in a hypothetical precision health study, with respondents split as willing to (39.6%), unwilling to (30.1%), and unsure about (30.3%) participating. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24.8%) reported they would prefer to opt out of the DNA component of a study, and 22.0% reported they would prefer to opt out of both the DNA and facial imaging component of the study. Few indicated willingness to pay a fee to opt-out of the collection of their research data. Finally, respondents were offered options for ideal governance design of their data, as "open science"; "gated science"; and "closed science." No option elicited a majority response. Our findings indicate that while a majority of research participants might be comfortable with facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and health-related research, a significant fraction expressed concern for the privacy of their own face-based data, similar to the privacy concerns of DNA data and medical records. A nuanced approach to uses of face-based data in healthcare and health-related research is needed, taking into consideration storage protection plans and the contexts of use.

Indexed as

Facial RecognitionPublic OpinionAdolescentAdultAgedAutomated Facial RecognitionBiomedical ResearchData ManagementDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedPrivacy

Identifiers

PMID34648520
PMCPMC8516205
OpenAlexW3205114486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.