MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986047573 · doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06459-3

Facing privacy in neuroimaging: removing facial features degrades performance of image analysis methods

2019· article· en· W2986047573 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexandra de Sitter, M. R. Visser, Iman Brouwer, Keith S. Cover, Ronald A. van Schijndel, Roelant S. Eijgelaar, Domenique M. J. Müller, Stefan Ropele, Ludwig Kappos, Àlex Rovira, Massimo Filippi, Christian Enzinger, Jette Lautrup Frederiksen, Olga Ciccarelli, Charles R.G. Guttmann, Mike P. Wattjes, Marnix G. Witte, Philip C. De Witt Hamer, Frederik Barkhof, Hugo Vrenken

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustEisaiMinistero della SaluteServierStichting MS ResearchNational Institutes of HealthRosetrees TrustKWF KankerbestrijdingUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity College LondonNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationMultiple Sclerosis SocietyPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheNational Institute on AgingNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationMeso Scale DiagnosticsTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCelgeneFondazione Italiana Sclerosi MultiplaU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBayer HealthCareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeSanofiAlzheimer's AssociationGenentechNational Multiple Sclerosis SocietyFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeuroimagingNeuroradiologyInterventional radiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)RadiologyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceInternet privacyMedical physicsNeurologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have created awareness that facial features can be reconstructed from high-resolution MRI. Therefore, data sharing in neuroimaging requires special attention to protect participants' privacy. Facial features removal (FFR) could alleviate these concerns. We assessed the impact of three FFR methods on subsequent automated image analysis to obtain clinically relevant outcome measurements in three clinical groups. METHODS: FFR was performed using QuickShear, FaceMasking, and Defacing. In 110 subjects of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, normalized brain volumes (NBV) were measured by SIENAX. In 70 multiple sclerosis patients of the MAGNIMS Study Group, lesion volumes (WMLV) were measured by lesion prediction algorithm in lesion segmentation toolbox. In 84 glioblastoma patients of the PICTURE Study Group, tumor volumes (GBV) were measured by BraTumIA. Failed analyses on FFR-processed images were recorded. Only cases in which all image analyses completed successfully were analyzed. Differences between outcomes obtained from FFR-processed and full images were assessed, by quantifying the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement and by testing for systematic differences using paired t tests. RESULTS: Automated analysis methods failed in 0-19% of cases in FFR-processed images versus 0-2% of cases in full images. ICC for absolute agreement ranged from 0.312 (GBV after FaceMasking) to 0.998 (WMLV after Defacing). FaceMasking yielded higher NBV (p = 0.003) and WMLV (p ≤ 0.001). GBV was lower after QuickShear and Defacing (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All three outcome measures were affected differently by FFR, including failure of analysis methods and both "random" variation and systematic differences. Further study is warranted to ensure high-quality neuroimaging research while protecting participants' privacy. KEY POINTS: • Protecting participants' privacy when sharing MRI data is important. • Impact of three facial features removal methods on subsequent analysis was assessed in three clinical groups. • Removing facial features degrades performance of image analysis methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean RadiologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207