The dataset contains images of children’s faces downloaded from websites about autism, which sparked concerns at Springer Nature about consent and reliability.
This tool wouldn’t work very well either. Ignoring the problems of collecting and verifying the validity of the data (and those are pretty big, serious problems), 2,900 images isn’t really enough to train an accurate image classifier. Especially not one that I would be comfortable using in a medical context.
Using the tool would probably result in a ton of false positives, and I’d bet the model would be overfitted to its data. Of course, I don’t think that would prevent people from using something like that nefariously.
It also wouldn’t work well because it’s impossible to diagnose someone with Autism solely from their face. They’d have much better luck making a tool for something like Down syndrome, but even still it would be very fallible.
Autism is widely called “invisible” for a reason lol.
This tool wouldn’t work very well either. Ignoring the problems of collecting and verifying the validity of the data (and those are pretty big, serious problems), 2,900 images isn’t really enough to train an accurate image classifier. Especially not one that I would be comfortable using in a medical context.
Using the tool would probably result in a ton of false positives, and I’d bet the model would be overfitted to its data. Of course, I don’t think that would prevent people from using something like that nefariously.
It also wouldn’t work well because it’s impossible to diagnose someone with Autism solely from their face. They’d have much better luck making a tool for something like Down syndrome, but even still it would be very fallible.
Autism is widely called “invisible” for a reason lol.