3 ms·

So if this works then the benefits will be amazing. I am skeptical for three reasons. First, the article goes on about the eyes being “windows” to the body an

by efitz 3y ago

So if this works then the benefits will be amazing. I am skeptical for three reasons. First, the article goes on about the eyes being “windows” to the body and introduces us to the new “science” of “oculomics”. That might be journalist license but it smells of pseudoscience; phrenology anyone? Second, the idea that any image of an eye can be used to diagnose lots of different neurological conditions like schizophrenia again smells like pseudoscience; reminds me of excessive claims of what chiropractic can do. Finally, the study seems to be “let’s dump medical records and retina images into a neural network and see what correlates”. I didn’t read the actual study but I would be extremely concerned about accuracy rates. So I remain cautiously optimistic but still very skeptical; I would be happy to be wrong in this case.

beardedwizard 3y ago
> Finally, the study seems to be “let’s dump medical records and retina images into a neural network and see what correlates”. I didn’t read the actual study but I would be extremely concerned about accuracy rates. I was left with exactly the same impression. This article was about a data set and the predictions being made from it without any mention of accuracy. I would hate to get a wrong diagnosis of Parkinson's.
parekhnish 3y ago
(Disclaimer: I worked in retinal imagery AI for a few years) I understand why this seems like pseudoscience, but I'd like to explain the assumption better. As the article states, > a scan of the retina is the only non-intrusive way to view layers of cells below the skin’s surface. As an extension, you could also make the case for being able to view the nervous system via such imagery. As stated in [1], > Despite its peripheral location, the retina or neural portion of the eye, is actually part of the central nervous system. The theory is that such a non-invasive of visualizing crucial parts of the inner body opens up a "window" into noticing such biomarkers well before the common-but-late-stage symptoms are noticeable. As for your gripe about: > let’s dump medical records and retina images into a neural network and see what correlates , I agree that this requires more careful analysis, but I assume that will happen as part of clinical trials of any such technology. The first foray, which is more experimental than anything concrete, is what this article seems to suggest. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10885/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20peripheral%20location%2C%20the,%3B%20see%20also%20Chapter%2022 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10885/#:~:text=Despite...).

by efitz 3y ago

beardedwizard 3y ago

> Finally, the study seems to be “let’s dump medical records and retina images into a neural network and see what correlates”. I didn’t read the actual study but I would be extremely concerned about accuracy rates. I was left with exactly the same impression. This article was about a data set and the predictions being made from it without any mention of accuracy. I would hate to get a wrong diagnosis of Parkinson's.

parekhnish 3y ago

(Disclaimer: I worked in retinal imagery AI for a few years) I understand why this seems like pseudoscience, but I'd like to explain the assumption better. As the article states, > a scan of the retina is the only non-intrusive way to view layers of cells below the skin’s surface. As an extension, you could also make the case for being able to view the nervous system via such imagery. As stated in [1], > Despite its peripheral location, the retina or neural portion of the eye, is actually part of the central nervous system. The theory is that such a non-invasive of visualizing crucial parts of the inner body opens up a "window" into noticing such biomarkers well before the common-but-late-stage symptoms are noticeable. As for your gripe about: > let’s dump medical records and retina images into a neural network and see what correlates , I agree that this requires more careful analysis, but I assume that will happen as part of clinical trials of any such technology. The first foray, which is more experimental than anything concrete, is what this article seems to suggest. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10885/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20peripheral%20location%2C%20the,%3B%20see%20also%20Chapter%2022 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10885/#:~:text=Despite...).