Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38074632›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023

Reproducibility evaluation of the effects of MRI defacing on brain segmentation.

Chenyu Gao, Bennett A Landman, Jerry L Prince, Aaron Carass

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implementation and validation of face de-identification (de-facing) in ADNI4.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chenyu GaoVanderbilt University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2098-3035
Bennett A LandmanVanderbilt University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5733-2127
Jerry L PrinceThe Johns Hopkins University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-0876
Aaron CarassThe Johns Hopkins University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-5085

Funding

Overall: Eunice Kennedy Shriver Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center at VanderbiltP50HD103537 · NICHD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Lea K Davis · 2020 to 2026
$10.3M
Controlling Quality and Capturing Uncertainty in Advanced Diffusion Weighted MRIR01EB017230 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LANDMAN, BENNETT A. · 2015 to 2024
$5.1M
Segmenting the subarachnoid space and dura from clinical MRIR21NS120286 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PRINCE, JERRY L · 2020 to 2020
$454k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017230NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103537NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS120286
6 · The paper itself

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

brain segmentationdefacingMRI

Identifiers

PMID38074632
PMCPMC10704191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.