ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023
Reproducibility evaluation of the effects of MRI defacing on brain segmentation.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-Identification of Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Protect Patient Privacy in Research Use: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Facial feature removal in magnetic resonance imaging scans of adults with Down syndrome: A de-facing methodological study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- DefaceQA - automated quality assessment of brain MRI defacing software.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Pitfalls of defacing whole-head MRI: re-identification risk with diffusion models and compromised research potential.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of Factors Affecting Quality in Structural Magnetic Resonance Images.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Image analysis research in neuroradiology: bridging clinical and technical domains.Neuroradiology · 2025Review
- WAND: A multi-modal dataset integrating advanced MRI, MEG, and TMS for multi-scale brain analysis.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of different deface algorithms on deep learning segmentation software performance.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Re-identification of anonymised MRI head images with publicly available software: investigation of the current risk to patient privacy.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Implementation and validation of face de-identification (de-facing) in ADNI4.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- The Aphasia Recovery Cohort, an open-source chronic stroke repository.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Assessing the Impact of Defacing Algorithms on Brain Volumetry Accuracy in MRI Analyses.Dementia and neurocognitive disorders · 2024Article
- Fast refacing of MR images with a generative neural network lowers re-identification risk and preserves volumetric consistency.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Bridging Huntington's disease research with big data science: Harmonized neuroimaging datasets from multiple studies.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Recent advances in magnetic resonance (MR) scanner quality and the rapidly improving nature of facial recognition software have necessitated the introduction of MR defacing algorithms to protect patient privacy. As a result, there are a number of MR defacing algorithms available to the neuroimaging community, with several appearing in just the last 5 years. While some qualities of these defacing algorithms, such as patient identifiability, have been explored in the previous works, the potential impact of defacing on neuroimage processing has yet to be explored. Approach: We qualitatively evaluate eight MR defacing algorithms on 179 subjects from the OASIS-3 cohort and 21 subjects from the Kirby-21 dataset. We also evaluate the effects of defacing on two neuroimaging pipelines-SLANT and FreeSurfer-by comparing the segmentation consistency between the original and defaced images. Results: Defacing can alter brain segmentation and even lead to catastrophic failures, which are more frequent with some algorithms, such as Quickshear, MRI_Deface, and FSL_deface. Compared to FreeSurfer, SLANT is less affected by defacing. On outputs that pass the quality check, the effects of defacing are less pronounced than those of rescanning, as measured by the Dice similarity coefficient. Conclusions: The effects of defacing are noticeable and should not be disregarded. Extra attention, in particular, should be paid to the possibility of catastrophic failures. It is crucial to adopt a robust defacing algorithm and perform a thorough quality check before releasing defaced datasets. To improve the reliability of analysis in scenarios involving defaced MRIs, it is encouraged to include multiple brain segmentation pipelines.
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.