Finding Medical Photographs of Patients Online: Randomized, Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Photographs from medical case reports published in academic journals have previously been found in online image search results. This means that patient photographs circulate beyond the original journal website and can be freely accessed online. While this raises ethical and legal concerns, no systematic study has documented how often this occurs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to provide systematic evidence that patient photographs from case reports published in medical journals appear in Google Images search results. Research questions included the following: (1) what percentage of patient medical photographs published in case reports were found in Google Images search results? (2) what was the relationship between open access publication status and image availability? and (3) did the odds of finding patient photographs on third-party websites differ between searches conducted in 2020 and 2022? METHODS: The main outcome measure assessed whether at least 1 photograph from each case report was found on Google Images when using a structured search. Secondary outcome variables included the image source and the availability of images on third-party websites over time. The characteristics of medical images were described using summary statistics. The association between the source of full-text availability and image availability on Google Images was tested using logistic regressions. Finally, we examined the trend of finding patient photographs using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: From a random sample of 585 case reports indexed in PubMed, 186 contained patient photographs, for a total of 598 distinct images. For 142 (76.3%) out of 186 case reports, at least 1 photograph was found in Google Images search results. A total of 18.3% (110/598) of photographs included eye, face, or full body, including 10.9% (65/598) that could potentially identify the patient. The odds of finding an image from the case report online were higher if the full-text paper was available on ResearchGate (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% CI 2.71-31.02), PubMed Central (OR 7.90, 95% CI 2.33-26.77), or Google Scholar (OR 6.07, 95% CI 2.77-13.29) than if the full-text was available solely through an open access journal (OR 5.33, 95% CI 2.31-12.28). However, all factors contributed to an increased risk of locating patient images online. Compared with the search in 2020, patient photographs were less likely to be found on third-party websites based on the 2022 search results (OR 0.61, 95% Cl 0.43-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of medical photographs from case reports was found on Google Images, raising ethical concerns with policy and practice implications. Journal publishers and corporations such as Google are best positioned to develop an effective remedy. Until then, it is crucial that patients are adequately informed about the potential risks and benefits of providing consent for clinicians to publish their images in medical journals.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".