ArticleDementia and neurocognitive disorders2024
Assessing the Impact of Defacing Algorithms on Brain Volumetry Accuracy in MRI Analyses.
Article in Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- De-Identification of Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Protect Patient Privacy in Research Use: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare informatics research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: To ensure data privacy, the development of defacing processes, which anonymize brain images by obscuring facial features, is crucial. However, the impact of these defacing methods on brain imaging analysis poses significant concern. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of three different defacing methods in automated brain volumetry. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging with three-dimensional T1 sequences was performed on ten patients diagnosed with subjective cognitive decline. Defacing was executed using mri_deface, BioImage Suite Web-based defacing, and Defacer. Brain volumes were measured employing the QBraVo program and FreeSurfer, assessing intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the mean differences in brain volume measurements between the original and defaced images. Results: The mean age of the patients was 71.10±6.17 years, with 4 (40.0%) being male. The total intracranial volume, total brain volume, and ventricle volume exhibited high ICCs across the three defacing methods and 2 volumetry analyses. All regional brain volumes showed high ICCs with all three defacing methods. Despite variations among some brain regions, no significant mean differences in regional brain volume were observed between the original and defaced images across all regions. Conclusions: The three defacing algorithms evaluated did not significantly affect the results of image analysis for the entire brain or specific cerebral regions. These findings suggest that these algorithms can serve as robust methods for defacing in neuroimaging analysis, thereby supporting data anonymization without compromising the integrity of brain volume measurements.
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.