Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Virus-specific antibody indices may supplement the total IgG index in diagnostics of multiple sclerosis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Leveraging Visual Outcome Measures to Advance Therapy Development in Neuroimmunologic Disorders

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  3. Alemtuzumab treatment in Denmark: A national study based on the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • MAGNIMS Study Group and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Radiology
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)1062-1074
Number of pages13
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020

    Research areas

  • Database, Ethics, Magnetic resonance imaging, Neuroimaging, Privacy, Reproducibility of Results, Humans, Middle Aged, Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods, Male, Multiple Sclerosis/pathology, Tumor Burden, Information Dissemination, Glioblastoma/diagnostic imaging, Brain/diagnostic imaging, Algorithms, Neuroimaging/methods, Confidentiality, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Aged, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/methods, Alzheimer Disease/pathology, Face

ID: 58366820