A technique for the deidentification of structural brain MR images

Due to the increasing need for subject privacy, the ability to deidentify structural MR images so that they do not provide full facial detail is desirable. A program was developed that uses models of nonbrain structures for removing potentially identifying facial features. When a novel image is pres...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHuman brain mapping Vol. 28; no. 9; pp. 892 - 903
Main Authors Bischoff-Grethe, Amanda, Ozyurt, I. Burak, Busa, Evelina, Quinn, Brian T., Fennema-Notestine, Christine, Clark, Camellia P., Morris, Shaunna, Bondi, Mark W., Jernigan, Terry L., Dale, Anders M., Brown, Gregory G., Fischl, Bruce
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.09.2007
Wiley-Liss
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Due to the increasing need for subject privacy, the ability to deidentify structural MR images so that they do not provide full facial detail is desirable. A program was developed that uses models of nonbrain structures for removing potentially identifying facial features. When a novel image is presented, the optimal linear transform is computed for the input volume (Fischl et al. [2002]: Neuron 33:341–355; Fischl et al. [2004]: Neuroimage 23 (Suppl 1):S69–S84). A brain mask is constructed by forming the union of all voxels with nonzero probability of being brain and then morphologically dilated. All voxels outside the mask with a nonzero probability of being a facial feature are set to 0. The algorithm was applied to 342 datasets that included two different T1‐weighted pulse sequences and four different diagnoses (depressed, Alzheimer's, and elderly and young control groups). Visual inspection showed none had brain tissue removed. In a detailed analysis of the impact of defacing on skull‐stripping, 16 datasets were bias corrected with N3 (Sled et al. [1998]: IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17:87–97), defaced, and then skull‐stripped using either a hybrid watershed algorithm (Ségonne et al. [2004]: Neuroimage 22:1060–1075, in FreeSurfer) or Brain Surface Extractor (Sandor and Leahy [1997]: IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16:41–54; Shattuck et al. [2001]: Neuroimage 13:856–876); defacing did not appreciably influence the outcome of skull‐stripping. Results suggested that the automatic defacing algorithm is robust, efficiently removes nonbrain tissue, and does not unduly influence the outcome of the processing methods utilized; in some cases, skull‐stripping was improved. Analyses support this algorithm as a viable method to allow data sharing with minimal data alteration within large‐scale multisite projects. Hum Brain Mapp 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Bibliography:Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research Service
ArticleID:HBM20312
ark:/67375/WNG-TD59V394-R
University of California
Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery (MIND) Institute
San Diego Alzheimer's Disease Research Center - No. P50 AG05131
NIDA - No. 5K01DA015499
Research Enhancement Award Program
VA Merit Review
Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center grants
istex:54E1836D5FD208A2EA653B27357033CD86BB6554
National Center for Research Resources at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) - No. U24 RR021382; No. projects BIRN002; No. BIRN004; No. M01RR00827; No. P41-RR14075; No. R01 RR16594-01A1
HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center - No. MH45294
NIMH - No. 5K08MH01642; No. R01MH42575
NIA - No. R01 AG006849; No. AG12674; No. AG04085
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1065-9471
1097-0193
DOI:10.1002/hbm.20312