Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41127020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Evaluating the impact of different deface algorithms on deep learning segmentation software performance.

Ali Ammar, Libing Zhu, Shep Bryan, Nathan Y Yu, Carlos Vargas, Yi Rong, Quan Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ali AmmarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Libing ZhuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Shep BryanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Nathan Y YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Carlos VargasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Yi RongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Quan ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Data sharing is essential for advancing research in radiation oncology, particularly for training artificial intelligence (AI) models in medical imaging. However, privacy concerns necessitate de-identification of medical images, including defacing operations to remove facial features. This study evaluates the impact of defacing on AI-driven organ segmentation in head-and-neck (HN) computed tomography (CT) images. Methods: Two defacing algorithms, DeIdentifier and Results: The results showed that defacing significantly impacted segmentation of on-face structures (e.g., oral cavity, eyes, lacrimal glands) with reduced DSC (<0.9) and higher HD95 (>2.5 mm), while off-face structures (e.g., brainstem, spinal cord) remained largely unaffected (DSC >0.9, HD95 <2 mm). DeIdentifier better preserved Hounsfield Units (HU) and anatomical consistency than Conclusion: These findings suggest that while defacing alters segmentation accuracy in on-face regions, its overall impact on off-face structures and radiation therapy planning is minimal. Future work should explore domain adaptation techniques to improve model robustness across defaced and non-defaced datasets, ensuring privacy while maintaining segmentation integrity.

Indexed as

CARINA AIcomputed tomography (CT)defacingDeIdentifierhead and neckmri_refaceradiation therapysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID41127020
PMCPMC12537390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.