ArticleScientific data2024
Exploring de-anonymization risks in PET imaging: Insights from a comprehensive analysis of 853 patient scans.
Article in Scientific data, 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.
- Exploring de-anonymization risks in PET imaging: Insights from a comprehensive analysis of 853 patient scans.Scientific data · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to their high resolution, anonymized CT scans can be reidentified using face recognition tools. However, little is known regarding PET deanonymization because of its lower resolution. In this study, we analysed PET/CT scans of 853 patients from a TCIA-restricted dataset (AutoPET). First, we built denoised 2D morphological reconstructions of both PET and CT scans, and then we determined how frequently a PET reconstruction could be matched to the correct CT reconstruction with no other metadata. Using the CT morphological reconstructions as ground truth allows us to frame the problem as a face recognition problem and to quantify our performance using traditional metrics (top k accuracies) without any use of patient pictures. Using our denoised PET 2D reconstructions, we achieved 72% top 10 accuracy after the realignment of all CTs in the same reference frame, and 71% top 10 accuracy after realignment and mixing within a larger face dataset of 10, 168 pictures. This highlights the need to consider face identification issues when dealing with PET imaging data.
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.