ArticleHuman brain mapping2024
Fast refacing of MR images with a generative neural network lowers re-identification risk and preserves volumetric consistency.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- De-Identification of Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Protect Patient Privacy in Research Use: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
- Pitfalls of defacing whole-head MRI: re-identification risk with diffusion models and compromised research potential.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Fast refacing of MR images with a generative neural network lowers re-identification risk and preserves volumetric consistency.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
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
Abstract
With the rise of open data, identifiability of individuals based on 3D renderings obtained from routine structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the head has become a growing privacy concern. To protect subject privacy, several algorithms have been developed to de-identify imaging data using blurring, defacing or refacing. Completely removing facial structures provides the best re-identification protection but can significantly impact post-processing steps, like brain morphometry. As an alternative, refacing methods that replace individual facial structures with generic templates have a lower effect on the geometry and intensity distribution of original scans, and are able to provide more consistent post-processing results by the price of higher re-identification risk and computational complexity. In the current study, we propose a novel method for anonymized face generation for defaced 3D T1-weighted scans based on a 3D conditional generative adversarial network. To evaluate the performance of the proposed de-identification tool, a comparative study was conducted between several existing defacing and refacing tools, with two different segmentation algorithms (FAST and Morphobox). The aim was to evaluate (i) impact on brain morphometry reproducibility, (ii) re-identification risk, (iii) balance between (i) and (ii), and (iv) the processing time. The proposed method takes 9 s for face generation and is suitable for recovering consistent post-processing results after defacing.
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.