3 ms·

I'd like to know the prevalance of 'false positives' with this test. If we scanned the brains of a completely random set of babies (these were high-likelihood c

I'd like to know the prevalance of 'false positives' with this test. If we scanned the brains of a completely random set of babies (these were high-likelihood cases), what percent of infants would show abnormal brain topography, but go on to be "normal"

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rusk 10y ago
(EDIT: Sorry, I just figured out the control-group - it's the extant body of knowledge around what describes normal head size - remarks about careful interpretation of results still stand) Found you all the way down at the bottom here and I decided to have a quick look at the abstract to see if I could find something to put your mind at ease. I couldn't. In fact the language "prospective neuroimaging study" suggests it's more like a pilot study than anything conclusive. The sample population "of 106 infants at high familial risk of ASD and 42 low-risk infants" is used, and while it seems like the 42 is a control-group I think that's misleading. Surely a "control group" would be one where the infants didn't exhibit this brain enlargement? There's reference to a "A deep-learning algorithm" rather than any well-understood approach for determining correlation e.g. a simple T-test. Finally the language "Brain volume overgrowth was linked to the emergence and severity of autistic social deficits" suggests an actual causal link is suggested, which doesn't seem to be the case. Just that a correlation has been discovered. There could be more to it but it costs £22 to look at the actual paper. But it does seem to me as though this is another case of incomplete science being presented as fait accompli. It doesn't contradict any scientific consensus so extraordinary evidence not required, but the BBC's interpretation of this as "Autism detectable in brain long before symptoms appear" does seem like a bit of a leap ...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rusk 10y ago

(EDIT: Sorry, I just figured out the control-group - it's the extant body of knowledge around what describes normal head size - remarks about careful interpretation of results still stand) Found you all the way down at the bottom here and I decided to have a quick look at the abstract to see if I could find something to put your mind at ease. I couldn't. In fact the language "prospective neuroimaging study" suggests it's more like a pilot study than anything conclusive. The sample population "of 106 infants at high familial risk of ASD and 42 low-risk infants" is used, and while it seems like the 42 is a control-group I think that's misleading. Surely a "control group" would be one where the infants didn't exhibit this brain enlargement? There's reference to a "A deep-learning algorithm" rather than any well-understood approach for determining correlation e.g. a simple T-test. Finally the language "Brain volume overgrowth was linked to the emergence and severity of autistic social deficits" suggests an actual causal link is suggested, which doesn't seem to be the case. Just that a correlation has been discovered. There could be more to it but it costs £22 to look at the actual paper. But it does seem to me as though this is another case of incomplete science being presented as fait accompli. It doesn't contradict any scientific consensus so extraordinary evidence not required, but the BBC's interpretation of this as "Autism detectable in brain long before symptoms appear" does seem like a bit of a leap ...