ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2023
Anonymizing Radiographs Using an Object Detection Deep Learning Algorithm.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- An automated end-to-end pipeline for the management, de-identification, and distribution of whole-slide images using DICOM: An institutional implementation.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- A practical guide to the implementation of artificial intelligence in orthopaedic research-Part 3: How orthopaedic research benefits from the implementation of artificial intelligence.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Best Practices for the Safe Use of Large Language Models and Other Generative AI in Radiology.Radiology · 2025Review
- Exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in medical image synthesis: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.The Lancet. Digital health · 2025Review
- A Guideline for Open-Source Tools to Make Medical Imaging Data Ready for Artificial Intelligence Applications: A Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM) Survey.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Analyzing Racial Differences in Imaging Joint Replacement Registries Using Generative Artificial Intelligence: Advancing Orthopaedic Data Equity.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Synthetically enhanced: unveiling synthetic data's potential in medical imaging research.EBioMedicine · 2024Article
- Lessons Learned in Building Expertly Annotated Multi-Institution Datasets and Hosting the RSNA AI Challenges.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Privacy, Please: Safeguarding Medical Data in Imaging AI Using Differential Privacy Techniques.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- The Scottish Medical Imaging Archive: A Unique Resource for Imaging-related Research.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Removing Radiographic Markers Using Deep Learning to Enable Image Sharing.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiographic markers contain protected health information that must be removed before public release. This work presents a deep learning algorithm that localizes radiographic markers and selectively removes them to enable de-identified data sharing. The authors annotated 2000 hip and pelvic radiographs to train an object detection computer vision model. Data were split into training, validation, and test sets at the patient level. Extracted markers were then characterized using an image processing algorithm, and potentially useful markers (eg, "L" and "R") without identifying information were retained. The model achieved an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.96 on the internal test set. The de-identification accuracy was 100% (400 of 400), with a de-identification false-positive rate of 1% (eight of 632) and a retention accuracy of 93% (359 of 386) for laterality markers. The algorithm was further validated on an external dataset of chest radiographs, achieving a de-identification accuracy of 96% (221 of 231). After fine-tuning the model on 20 images from the external dataset to investigate the potential for improvement, a 99.6% (230 of 231,
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.