Anybody have the link or how can I test myself?
In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but I have great eyesight and haven't been to an optician in 15 years. However, I might still be at risk of a heart attack.
You might also be at risk for blindness! Please, please, please go see an eye Dr! It's isn't just about how clear your vision is. These are your eyes .
Yes! Just to name one, glaucoma doesn't degrade vision in its early stages (when it's more easily treatable).
There are so many things that can happen to your vision, at high life cost. Get your vision checked regularly.
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#43Remember what happened they tried to predict the flu. https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-...
In https://www.kaggle.com/c/diabetic-retinopathy-detection actually ML algo did better than humans. Yet it will take time for apply these widely.
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#44>Google’s algorithms were able to predict whether someone had high blood pressure or was at risk of a heart attack or stroke
How is that different from just measuring the blood pressure (with really inexpensive device)?
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if you have AI, you do not need the optician/doctor. For example people in Poor countries have no access to such a person.
There are a few startups/companies that specialize in going to poor countries and using lens attachments on cell phones to do eye exams. They send in people who aren't doctors, take a picture of the eye, and email/upload the pictures to doctors who can analyze it for issues. IIRC, in those situations, the problem isn't the accessibility to a doctor, but rather the accessibility to someone who has a device capable of…
It might be way easy to sell to a nineteen year old looking for a gap year activity. "Go to PNG, meet some people, save their life. Look, you just take a photo, and minutes later it says 'They need help'". The doctor reading the image is going to take days or who knows how long.
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#46Remember what happened they tried to predict the flu. https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-... In https://www.kaggle.com/c/diabetic-retinopathy-detection actually ML algo did better than humans. Yet it will take time for apply these widely.
Those are two entirely unrelated methods. One worked, one failed. One is a sort of "wisdom of the crowd" algorithm (as in human crowds) and it failed after initially showing promise (essentially it worked until someone told the crowd), one is machine learning from images.
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t need to visit an optician. A family doctor with a lantern can do it (and normally they do). It’s a very simple test. It’s not a ML or AI challenge at all.
But if you have AI, you do not need the optician/doctor. For example people in Poor countries have no access to such a person.
Imaging the retina is not something that can be done by holding a phone to your eye, unless I'm mistaken.
So you'd still need the optician/doctor, if only because they have necessary equipment.
Re: In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk
#48Honest question: why is that an alternative medicine eg. Iridology is seen as quackery but a computer predicting heart attack risk is not? I know the science behind AI but from a patient point of view, they both analyze the eye.