this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
114 points (75.0% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
3278 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
114
AI-screened eye pics diagnose childhood autism with 100% accuracy (newatlas.com)
submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AI-screened eye pics diagnose childhood autism with 100% accuracy::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 152 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (15 children)

Bull.Shit.

Define the criteria, have it peer reviewed and diagnosed, or else we will ALL be diagnosed with Autism soon enough.

[–] crystenn@lemmy.ml 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At the bottom of the article, the paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812964

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

You can't just believe something because it's been peer-reviewed. It is an absolutely minimal requirement for credibility these days but the system does not work well at all.

In this case, the authors acknowledge the need for more studies to establish how generalisable their findings are. It's the first attempt at building a tool, it doesn't mean anything at all until the findings are reproduced by an independent group.

[–] crystenn@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 months ago

totally agree, peer reviewing is the bare minimum, but it IS a step above any old article published on a random website. also would like to acknowledge the limitations of this particular study. fair criticism and is something the authors brought up in their paper too.

my reply was in response to the original commenter mentioning that there was no link to the study at all.

[–] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Totally agree, like for those vaccins. It's not because they are published they are safe ! /s.

[–] darelik@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sidebar: this talk of papers reminded me of writing one when hungry

[–] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Isn't it a part of what someone printed on their neighbor's wifi printer ?

load more comments (13 replies)