Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41654750›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2026

DefaceQA - automated quality assessment of brain MRI defacing software.

Maryam Khodaei Dolouei, Sina Sadeghi, Toralf Kirsten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Maryam Khodaei Dolouei *Department for Medical Data Science, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
Sina Sadeghi *Department for Medical Data Science, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany. sina.sadeghi@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Toralf KirstenDepartment for Medical Data Science, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defacing of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans by removing identifiable facial features is essential for protecting patient privacy, yet assessing defacing quality remains challenging. While deep learning methods offer solutions, they require large labeled datasets, limiting their practical applicability. This study presents DefaceQA, a machine learning (ML) approach for automated defacing quality assessment using quantitative image features. A dataset of 200 MRI scans from the Leukodystrophy Registry at the Leipzig University Medical Center was processed using four defacing algorithms: PyDeface, QuickShear, FSL-Deface, and MRI-Deface. Image features extracted from original and defaced scans were used to classify defacing efficacy. The ML classifiers achieved an AUROC of 0.84 and an accuracy of 0.85 under a lenient criterion for successful/unsuccessful defacing, with the Feature Similarity Index Measure (FSIM) emerging as a key predictor. The findings demonstrate ML’s potential for defacing evaluation while highlighting challenges related to dataset limitations and generalizability.

Indexed as

BrainImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingSoftwareAlgorithmsHumansBrain MRIDefacing softwareMachine learningPatient privacy

Identifiers

PMID41654750
PMCPMC12930984

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.