Abstract
Purpose Recent advances in magnetic resonance (MR) scanner quality and the rapidly improving nature of facial recognition software have necessitated the introduction of MR defacing algorithms to protect patient privacy. As a result, there are a number of MR defacing algorithms available to the neuroimaging community, with several appearing in just the last five years. While some qualities of these defacing algorithms, such as patient identifiability, have been explored in previous works, the potential impact of defacing on neuroimage processing has yet to be explored.
Approach We qualitatively evaluate eight MR defacing algorithms on 179 subjects from the OASIS-3 cohort and the 21 subjects from the Kirby-21 dataset. We also evaluate the effects of defacing on two neuroimaging pipelines— SLANT and FreeSurfer—by comparing the segmentation consistency between the original and defaced images.
Results Defacing can alter brain segmentation and even lead to catastrophic failures, which are more frequent with some algorithms such as Quickshear, MRI_Deface, and FSL_deface. Compared to FreeSurfer, SLANT is less affected by defacing. On outputs that pass the quality check, the effects of defacing are less pronounced than those of rescanning, as measured by the Dice similarity coefficient.
Conclusions The effects of defacing are noticeable and should not be disregarded. Extra attention, in particular, should be paid to the possibility of catastrophic failures. It is crucial to adopt a robust defacing algorithm and perform a thorough quality check before releasing defaced datasets. To improve the reliability of analysis in scenarios involving defaced MRIs, it’s encouraged to include multiple brain segmentation pipelines.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Health through National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke grant 1R21NS120286-01 (PI: J.L. Prince) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering grant 1R01EB017230-01A1 (PI: B.A. Landman).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located at:
https://www.nitrc.org/projects/multimodal/
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used for this study are available online at:
