ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Facial Privacy Protection for Ocular Diagnosis: Development and Validation Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- LLM research on public biosignals data is needed to protect patients.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Correction: Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Facial Privacy Protection for Ocular Diagnosis: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facial biometric data, while valuable for clinical applications, poses substantial privacy and security risks. Objective: This paper aims to address the privacy and security concerns related to facial biometric data and support auxiliary diagnoses, in pursuit of which we developed Digital FaceDefender, an artificial intelligence-driven privacy safeguard solution. Methods: We constructed a diverse set of digitally synthesized Asian face avatars representing both sexes, spanning ages 5 to 85 years in 10-year increments, using 70,000 facial images and 13,061 Asian face images. Landmark data were separately extracted from both patient and avatar images. Affine transformations ensured spatial alignment, followed by color correction and Gaussian blur to enhance fusion quality. For auxiliary diagnosis, we established 95% CIs for pixel distances within the eye region on a cohort of 1163 individuals, serving as diagnostic benchmarks. Reidentification risk was assessed using the ArcFace model, applied to 2500 images reconstructed via Detailed Expression Capture and Animation (DECA). Finally, Cohen Kappa analyses (n=114) was applied to assess agreement between diagnostic benchmarks and ophthalmologists' evaluations. Results: Compared to the DM method, Digital FaceDefender significantly reduced facial similarity scores (FDface vs raw images: 0.31; FLAME_FDface vs raw images: 0.09) and achieved zero Rank-1 accuracy in Pose #2-#3 and Pose #2-#5, with near-zero accuracy in Pose #4 (0.02) and Pose #5 (0.04), confirming lower reidentification risk. Cohen Kappa analysis demonstrated moderate agreement between our benchmarks and ophthalmologists' assessments for the left eye (κ=0.37) and right eye (κ=0.45; both P<.001), validating diagnostic reliability of the benchmarks. Furthermore, the user-friendly Digital FaceDefender platform has been established and is readily accessible for use. Conclusions: In summary, Digital FaceDefender effectively balances privacy protection and diagnostic use.
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.