ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2025
Pitfalls of defacing whole-head MRI: re-identification risk with diffusion models and compromised research potential.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 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.
- Radiology research platform: automating multicenter radiological research workflows using a cloud-native platform.European radiology · 2026Article
- Precision cardiovascular medicine with big data and AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Defacing is often applied to head magnetic resonance image (MRI) datasets prior to public release to address privacy concerns. The alteration of facial and nearby voxels has provoked discussions about the true capability of these techniques to ensure privacy as well as their impact on downstream tasks. With advancements in deep generative models, the extent to which defacing can protect privacy is uncertain. Additionally, while the altered voxels are known to contain valuable anatomical information, their potential to support research beyond the anatomical regions directly affected by defacing remains uncertain. To evaluate these considerations, we develop a refacing pipeline that recovers faces in defaced head MRIs using cascaded diffusion probabilistic models (DPMs). The DPMs are trained on images from 180 subjects and tested on images from 484 unseen subjects, 469 of whom are from a different dataset. To assess whether the altered voxels in defacing contain universally useful information, we also predict computed tomography (CT)-derived skeletal muscle radiodensity from facial voxels in both defaced and original MRIs. The results show that DPMs can generate high-fidelity faces that resemble the original faces from defaced images, with surface distances to the original faces significantly smaller than those of a population average face (p < 0.05). This performance also generalizes well to previously unseen datasets. For skeletal muscle radiodensity predictions, using defaced images results in significantly weaker Spearman's rank correlation coefficients compared to using original images (p ≤ 10
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.