Removing facial features from structural MRI images biases visual quality assessment.

IF 9.8 1区 生物学 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
PLoS Biology Pub Date : 2025-04-30 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003149
Céline Provins, Élodie Savary, Thomas Sanchez, Emeline Mullier, Jaime Barranco, Elda Fischi-Gómez, Yasser Alemán-Gómez, Jonas Richiardi, Russell A Poldrack, Patric Hagmann, Oscar Esteban
{"title":"Removing facial features from structural MRI images biases visual quality assessment.","authors":"Céline Provins, Élodie Savary, Thomas Sanchez, Emeline Mullier, Jaime Barranco, Elda Fischi-Gómez, Yasser Alemán-Gómez, Jonas Richiardi, Russell A Poldrack, Patric Hagmann, Oscar Esteban","doi":"10.1371/journal.pbio.3003149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A critical step before data-sharing of human neuroimaging is removing facial features to protect individuals' privacy. However, not only does this process redact identifiable information about individuals, but it also removes non-identifiable information. This introduces undesired variability into downstream analysis and interpretation. This registered report investigated the degree to which the so-called defacing altered the quality assessment of T1-weighted images of the human brain from the openly available \"IXI dataset\". The effect of defacing on manual quality assessment was investigated on a single-site subset of the dataset (N = 185). By comparing two linear mixed-effects models, we determined that four trained human raters' perception of quality was significantly influenced by defacing by modeling their ratings on the same set of images in two conditions: \"nondefaced\" (i.e., preserving facial features) and \"defaced\". In addition, we investigated these biases on automated quality assessments by applying repeated-measures, multivariate ANOVA (rm-MANOVA) on the image quality metrics extracted with MRIQC on the full IXI dataset (N = 581; three acquisition sites). This study found that defacing altered the quality assessments by humans and showed that MRIQC's quality metrics were mostly insensitive to defacing.</p>","PeriodicalId":49001,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Biology","volume":"23 4","pages":"e3003149"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12143891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A critical step before data-sharing of human neuroimaging is removing facial features to protect individuals' privacy. However, not only does this process redact identifiable information about individuals, but it also removes non-identifiable information. This introduces undesired variability into downstream analysis and interpretation. This registered report investigated the degree to which the so-called defacing altered the quality assessment of T1-weighted images of the human brain from the openly available "IXI dataset". The effect of defacing on manual quality assessment was investigated on a single-site subset of the dataset (N = 185). By comparing two linear mixed-effects models, we determined that four trained human raters' perception of quality was significantly influenced by defacing by modeling their ratings on the same set of images in two conditions: "nondefaced" (i.e., preserving facial features) and "defaced". In addition, we investigated these biases on automated quality assessments by applying repeated-measures, multivariate ANOVA (rm-MANOVA) on the image quality metrics extracted with MRIQC on the full IXI dataset (N = 581; three acquisition sites). This study found that defacing altered the quality assessments by humans and showed that MRIQC's quality metrics were mostly insensitive to defacing.

从结构MRI图像中去除面部特征会影响视觉质量评估。
在人类神经成像数据共享之前的一个关键步骤是删除面部特征以保护个人隐私。然而,这个过程不仅编辑了关于个人的可识别信息,而且还删除了不可识别的信息。这在下游分析和解释中引入了不期望的可变性。这份注册报告调查了所谓的污损在多大程度上改变了来自公开可用的“IXI数据集”的人类大脑t1加权图像的质量评估。在数据集的单个站点子集(N = 185)上研究了污损对人工质量评估的影响。通过比较两种线性混合效应模型,我们确定了四名训练有素的人类评判员的质量感知受到毁损的显著影响,通过在两种条件下对同一组图像进行建模:“未毁损”(即保留面部特征)和“毁损”。此外,我们通过对完整IXI数据集(N = 581;三个收购地点)。本研究发现,污损改变了人类的质量评估,并表明MRIQC的质量指标对污损大多不敏感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS Biology
PLoS Biology BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY-BIOLOGY
CiteScore
15.40
自引率
2.00%
发文量
359
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Biology is the flagship journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and focuses on publishing groundbreaking and relevant research in all areas of biological science. The journal features works at various scales, ranging from molecules to ecosystems, and also encourages interdisciplinary studies. PLOS Biology publishes articles that demonstrate exceptional significance, originality, and relevance, with a high standard of scientific rigor in methodology, reporting, and conclusions. The journal aims to advance science and serve the research community by transforming research communication to align with the research process. It offers evolving article types and policies that empower authors to share the complete story behind their scientific findings with a diverse global audience of researchers, educators, policymakers, patient advocacy groups, and the general public. PLOS Biology, along with other PLOS journals, is widely indexed by major services such as Crossref, Dimensions, DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, PLOS Biology is indexed by various other services including AGRICOLA, Biological Abstracts, BIOSYS Previews, CABI CAB Abstracts, CABI Global Health, CAPES, CAS, CNKI, Embase, Journal Guide, MEDLINE, and Zoological Record, ensuring that the research content is easily accessible and discoverable by a wide range of audiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信