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.
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.