ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2022
Informed Consent In Facial Photograph Publishing: A Cross-sectional Pilot Study To Determine The Effectiveness Of Deidentification Methods.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Participant Perspectives on Data Sharing in Clinical Craniofacial Research: Qualitative Interviews With Participants With Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Caregivers.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Navigating Privacy in Facial Transplantation: Ethical Considerations and Institutional Strategies.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- How much of a face is a face: exploring reidentification potential with generative AI.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2026Article
- Respecting privacy and upholding confidentiality: core ethical duties.Singapore medical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study determined the effectiveness of three deidentification methods: use of a) a black box to obscure facial landmarks, b) a letterbox view to display restricted facial landmarks and c) a half letterbox view. Facial images of well-known celebrities were used to create a series of decreasingly deidentified images and displayed to participants in a structured interview session. 55.5% were recognised when all facial features were covered using a black box, leaving only the hair and neck exposed. The letterbox view proved more effective, reaching over 50% recognition only once the periorbital region, eyebrows, and forehead were visible. The half letterbox was the most effective, requiring the nose to be revealed before recognition reached over 50%, and should be the option of choice where appropriate. These findings provide valuable information for informed consent discussions, and we recommend consent to publish forms should stipulate the deidentification method that will be used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.