Implementation and validation of face de‐identification (de‐facing) in ADNI4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent technological advances have increased the risk that de-identified brain images could be re-identified from face imagery. The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a leading source of publicly available de-identified brain imaging, who quickly acted to protect participants' privacy. METHODS: An independent expert committee evaluated 11 face-deidentification ("de-facing") methods and selected four for formal testing. RESULTS: Effects of de-facing on brain measurements were comparable across methods and sufficiently small to recommend de-facing in ADNI. The committee ultimately recommended mri_reface for advantages in reliability, and for some practical considerations. ADNI leadership approved the committee's recommendation, beginning in ADNI4. DISCUSSION: ADNI4 de-faces all applicable brain images before subsequent pre-processing, analyses, and public release. Trained analysts inspect de-faced images to confirm complete face removal and complete non-modification of brain. This paper details the history of the algorithm selection process and extensive validation, then describes the production workflows for de-facing in ADNI. HIGHLIGHTS: ADNI is implementing "de-facing" of MRI and PET beginning in ADNI4. "De-facing" alters face imagery in brain images to help protect privacy. Four algorithms were extensively compared for ADNI and mri_reface was chosen. Validation confirms mri_reface is robust and effective for ADNI sequences. Validation confirms mri_reface negligibly affects ADNI brain measurements.
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 | 0.100 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".