ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Manual and automated facial de-identification techniques for patient imaging with preservation of sinonasal anatomy.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeFacial recognition of reconstructed computed tomography (CT) scans poses patient privacy risks, necessitating reliable facial de-identification methods. Current methods obscure sinuses, turbinates, and other anatomy relevant for otolaryngology. We present a facial de-identification method that preserves these structures, along with two automated workflows for large-volume datasets.
methodsA total of 20 adult head CTs from the New Mexico Decedent Image Database were included. Using 3D Slicer, a seed-growing technique was performed to label the skin around the face. This label was dilated bidirectionally to form a 6-mm mask that obscures facial features. This technique was then automated using: (1) segmentation propagation that deforms an atlas head CT and corresponding mask to match other scans and (2) a deep learning model (nnU-Net). Accuracy of these methods against manually generated masks was evaluated with Dice scores and modified Hausdorff distances (mHDs).
resultsManual de-identification resulted in facial match rates of 45.0% (zero-fill), 37.5% (deletion), and 32.5% (re-face). Dice scores for automated face masks using segmentation propagation and nnU-Net were 0.667 ± 0.109 and 0.860 ± 0.029, respectively, with mHDs of 4.31 ± 3.04 mm and 1.55 ± 0.71 mm. Match rates after de-identification using segmentation propagation (zero-fill: 42.5%; deletion: 40.0%; re-face: 35.0%) and nnU-Net (zero-fill: 42.5%; deletion: 35.0%; re-face: 30.0%) were comparable to manual masks.
conclusionWe present a simple facial de-identification approach for head CTs, as well as automated methods for large-scale implementation. These techniques show promise for preventing patient identification while preserving underlying sinonasal anatomy, but further studies using live patient photographs are necessary to fully validate its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40439827What 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.