Barry Brunsden

Washington University in St. Louis, San Luis, Missouri, United States

Are you Barry Brunsden?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)65.79 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) brain imaging studies are a routine component of both clinical practice and clinical and translational research. A side effect of such reconstructions is the creation of a potentially recognizable face. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule requires that individually identifiable health information may not be used for research unless identifiers that may be associated with the health information including "Full face photographic images and other comparable images ..." are removed (de-identification). Thus, a key question is: Are reconstructed facial images comparable to full-face photographs for the purpose of identification? To address this question, MR images were selected from existing research repositories and subjects were asked to pair an MR reconstruction with one of 40 photographs. The chance probability that an observer could match a photograph with its 3-D MR image was 1 in 40 (0.025), and we considered 4 successes out of 40 (4/40, 0.1) to indicate that a subject could identify persons' faces from their 3-D MR images. Forty percent of the subjects were able to successfully match photographs with MR images with success rates higher than the null hypothesis success rate. The Blyth-Still-Casella 95% confidence interval for the 40% success rate was 29%-52%, and the 40% success rate was significantly higher ( P < 0.001) than our null hypothesis success rate of 1 in 10 (0.10).
    IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine: a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 01/2009; 13(1):5-9. · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three Dimensional (3D) reconstructions of Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance (MR) brain imaging studies are a routine component of both clinical practice and clinical and translational research. A side effect of such reconstructions is the creation of a potentially recognizable face. The Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule requires that individually identifiable health information may not be used for research unless identifiers that may be associated with the health information including Full face photographic images and other comparable images are removed (de-identification). Thus a key question is, are reconstructed facial images comparable to full-face photographs for the purpose of identification? To address this question MR images were selected from existing research repositories and subjects were asked to pair an MR reconstruction with one of 40 photographs. The chance probability that an observer could match a photograph with its 3D MR image was 1 in 40 (0.025), and we considered 4 successes out of 40 (4/40, 0.1) to indicate that a subject could identify persons faces from their 3D MR images. Forty percent of the subjects were able to successfully match photographs with MR images with success rates higher than the null hypothesis success rate. The Blyth-Still-Casella 95% CI for the 40% success rate was 29% to 52%, and the 40% success rate was significantly higher (P < 0.001) than our null hypothesis success rate of 1 in 10 (0.10).
    IEEE transactions on information technology in biomedicine: a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 12/2008; · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Martin et al. claim that they have two endocasts from microcephalics that appear similar to that of LB1, Homo floresiensis. However, the line drawings they present as evidence lack details about the transverse sinuses, cerebellum, and cerebral poles. Comparative measurements, actual photographs, and sketches that identify key features are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about Martin et al.'s assertions.
    Science 05/2006; 312(5776):999-999. · 31.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The brain of Homo floresiensis was assessed by comparing a virtual endocast from the type specimen (LB1) with endocasts from great apes, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, a human pygmy, a human microcephalic, specimen number Sts 5 (Australopithecus africanus), and specimen number WT 17000 (Paranthropus aethiopicus). Morphometric, allometric, and shape data indicate that LB1 is not a microcephalic or pygmy. LB1's brain/body size ratio scales like that of an australopithecine, but its endocast shape resembles that of Homo erectus. LB1 has derived frontal and temporal lobes and a lunate sulcus in a derived position, which are consistent with capabilities for higher cognitive processing.
    Science 05/2005; 308(5719):242-5. · 31.20 Impact Factor