ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026
How much of a face is a face: exploring reidentification potential with generative AI.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Clinical photographs play an integral role across medical fields. Since the mid-20th century, deidentification has consisted of black bars covering specific facial features, typically the eyes alone. Although increasingly questioned, this practice persists in clinical and academic settings. Approach: A barrier to standardized deidentification guideline development is the unknown risk of artificial intelligence (AI) to reconstruct faces from partially obscured photos. We evaluate the ability of generative AI to reconstruct 10,000 facial images in the Synthetic Faces High Quality dataset across 14 regional masking strategies. Results: Covering the eyes or any other single facial feature resulted in highly identifiable reconstructions, demonstrated by low face mesh distortion (0.14 to 0.18 relative to whole-face masking; absolute total face mesh distortion 8.34 to 10.19) and high structural similarity index to the original face (1.24 to 1.25 relative to whole-face masking; absolute SSIM 0.91 to 0.92). An open-source face verification model using Dlib was able to match 97.98% to 99.93% of these reconstructed images with the original image prior to single feature masking. Removing all major facial features (eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth) resulted in a threefold reduction in face verification rates compared with eyes alone, from 98.87% (95% CI [98.63%, 99.07%]) to 33.93% (95% CI [32.95%, 34.94%]). Conclusions: We provide quantitative metrics of the reidentification risk that modern generative AI technology poses for partially obscured facial images.
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.