Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42490601›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Ensuring data protection for eye images by combining fine-tuned image synthesis and anonymity assessment.

Sebastian Uschmann, Cord Spreckelsen, Sven Festag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 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.

Sebastian UschmannInstitute of Medical Statistics, Computer and Data Sciences, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3108-6495
Cord SpreckelsenInstitute of Medical Statistics, Computer and Data Sciences, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7301-1566
Sven FestagInstitute of Medical Statistics, Computer and Data Sciences, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in realistic image synthesis have led to several downstream applications in healthcare, particularly the anonymisation of biometric images. However, generative models pose significant privacy risks when synthetic outputs closely resemble the real, personal images required for training. To address these challenges, we propose a two-stage framework for generating privacy-preserving synthetic eye images based on a dataset of real photographs. Our system consists of a fine-tuned text-to-image synthesiser based on Stable Diffusion (v1-5), followed by a privacy risk scorer termed the "Cone of Privacy" (CoP). Inspired by the DreamBooth method, the synthesiser incorporates information about the original dataset to generate similar realistic yet diverse images. To mitigate identity leakage, the CoP score measures the identifiability of synthetic images with respect to the training images based on embeddings from a pre-trained vision transformer. In evaluations on a dataset of 2,000 images from 704 subjects, our approach successfully generated realistic images while filtering high-risk samples, achieving a privacy threat detection rate above 97%. The Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) between the original and the fully synthetic datasets was 57.1, with privacy-violating synthetic images scoring 51.3 and privacy-preserving images scoring 82.6, demonstrating a trade-off between realism and privacy protection. These results suggest the framework is a promising solution for anonymising biometric eye images in clinical and research applications.

Identifiers

PMID42490601
PMCPMC13395446

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.