De‐identification procedures for magnetic resonance images and the impact on structural brain measures at different ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface rendering of MRI brain scans may lead to identification of the participant through facial characteristics. In this study, we evaluate three methods that overwrite voxels containing privacy-sensitive information: Face Masking, FreeSurfer defacing, and FSL defacing. We included structural T1-weighted MRI scans of children, young adults and older adults. For the young adults, test-retest data were included with a 1-week interval. The effects of the de-identification methods were quantified using different statistics to capture random variation and systematic noise in measures obtained through the FreeSurfer processing pipeline. Face Masking and FSL defacing impacted brain voxels in some scans especially in younger participants. FreeSurfer defacing left brain tissue intact in all cases. FSL defacing and FreeSurfer defacing preserved identifiable characteristics around the eyes or mouth in some scans. For all de-identification methods regional brain measures of subcortical volume, cortical volume, cortical surface area, and cortical thickness were on average highly replicable when derived from original versus de-identified scans with average regional correlations >.90 for children, young adults, and older adults. Small systematic biases were found that incidentally resulted in significantly different brain measures after de-identification, depending on the studied subsample, de-identification method, and brain metric. In young adults, test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were comparable for original scans and de-identified scans with average regional ICCs >.90 for (sub)cortical volume and cortical surface area and ICCs >.80 for cortical thickness. We conclude that apparent visual differences between de-identification methods minimally impact reliability of brain measures, although small systematic biases can occur.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".