Which common MRI research sequences need de‐facing before research data sharing?

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundWe have previously shown that 3D T1‐weighted and 3D T2‐FLAIR brain MRI can potentially be re‐identified using face recognition, but this has not been tested for other MRI sequences commonly used in imaging studies of aging and dementia. Here we compare match rates of automated face recognition to re‐identify 3D T1‐weighted, 3D T2‐FLAIR, 3D T2‐weighted, 2D Axial T2‐FLAIR, multi‐echo GRE (T2*), diffusion MRI, functional MRI, ASL, and T2* GRE images.MethodWe used a dataset of 182 Mayo Clinic participants each with MRI and face photographs. MRIs used Siemens and GE vendor‐product sequences similar to ADNI3 and ADNI4 protocols. We created face reconstructions (“basic”, with minimal preprocessing, and “advanced” that automatically filled missing face regions using a template) from each MRI sequence, and we trained a Microsoft Azure PersonGroup face recognition classifier to recognize these MRI‐based faces. We then queried the classifier with five face photographs for each participant, and we recorded how often the classifier chose the correct MRI as the top‐ranked match. For image types with match rates > = 10%, we then repeated the experiment after de‐facing each MRI with mri_reface, our leading software that replaces faces in each image (“re‐faces”) with an average face.ResultResults are presented in Table 1. 3D T2‐FLAIR, 3D T1‐weighted, and 3D T2‐weighted images were matched at 96‐98%, and mri_reface reduced all to 8%. Axial T2‐FLAIR and ME‐GRE were matched at 32‐45%, and mri_reface reduced both to 1%. T2*‐GRE matched at 10%, and mri_reface reduced this to 1%. ASL matched at 8%, while dMRI and fMRI matched at only 0‐2%.ConclusionAmong current‐generation vendor‐product sequences, we recommend that de‐facing be applied before research data sharing of T1‐weighted, T2‐weighted, T2‐FLAIR, T2*, and ME‐GRE images. Minimal match rates for current‐generation product fMRI, ASL, and fMRI images suggest that they present low risk of re‐identification and can be shared without de‐facing, but this conclusion should be re‐evaluated if they are acquired without fat‐suppression, with a larger field of view, or if newer developments reduce the current levels of artifacts and distortion around the face.