Y’know how you might look at someone and can’t help but wonder if they have a genetic disorder? We’ve taught AI to do the same

Artificial intelligence can potentially identify someone’s genetic disorders by inspecting a picture of their face, according to a paper published in Nature Medicine this week.

The tech relies on the fact some genetic conditions impact not just a person’s health, mental function, and behaviour, but sometimes are accompanied with distinct facial characteristics. For example, people with Down Syndrome are more likely to have angled eyes, a flatter nose and head, or abnormally shaped teeth. Other disorders like Noonan Syndrome are distinguished by having a wide forehead, a large gap between the eyes, or a small jaw. You get the idea.

An international group of researchers, led by US-based FDNA, turned to machine-learning software to study genetic mutations, and believe that machines can help doctors diagnose patients with genetic disorders using their headshots.

The team used 17,106 faces to train a convolutional neural network (CNN), commonly used in computer vision tasks, to screen for 216 genetic syndromes. The images were obtained from two sources: publicly available medical reference libraries, and snaps submitted by users of a smartphone app called Face2Gene, developed by FDNA.

Given an image, the system, dubbed DeepGestalt, studies a person’s face to make a note of the size and shape of their eyes, nose, and mouth. Next, the face is split into regions, and each piece is fed into the CNN. The pixels in each region of the face are represented as vectors and mapped to a set of features that are commonly associated with the genetic disorders learned by the neural network during its training process.

DeepGestalt then assigns a score per syndrome for each region, and collects these results to compile a list of its top 10 genetic disorder guesses from that submitted face.

deepgestalt

An example of how DeepGestalt works. First, the input image is analysed using landmarks and sectioned into different regions before the system spits out its top 10 predictions. Image credit: Nature and Gurovich et al.

The first answer is the genetic disorder DeepGestalt believes the patient is most likely affected by, all the way down to its tenth answer, which is the tenth most likely disorder.

When it was tested on two independent datasets, the system accurately guessed the correct genetic disorder among its top 10 suggestions around 90 per cent of the time. At first glance, the results seem promising. The paper also mentions DeepGestalt “outperformed clinicians in three initial experiments, two with the goal of distinguishing subjects with a target syndrome from other syndromes, and one of separating different genetic subtypes in Noonan Syndrome.”

There’s always a but

A closer look, though, reveals that the lofty claims involve training and testing the system on limited datasets – in other words, if you stray outside the software’s comfort zone, and show it unfamiliar faces, it probably won’t perform that well. The authors admit previous similar studies “have used small-scale data for training, typically up to 200 images, which are small for deep-learning models.” Although they use a total of more than 17,000 training images, when spread across 216 genetic syndromes, the training dataset for each one ends up being pretty small.

For example, the model that examined Noonan Syndrome was only trained on 278 images. The datasets DeepGestalt were tested against were similarly small. One only contained 502 patient images, and the other 392.

Source: Y’know how you might look at someone and can’t help but wonder if they have a genetic disorder? We’ve taught AI to do the same • The Register

Professor exposing unethical academic publishing is being sued by university in childish discrediting counterclaims of being unethical for showing unethical behaviour

The three authors, who describe themselves as leftists, spent 10 months writing 20 hoax papers they submitted to reputable journals in gender, race, sexuality, and related fields. Seven were accepted, four were published online, and three were in the process of being published when questions raised in October by a skeptical Wall Street Journal editorial writer forced them to halt their project.

One of their papers, about canine rape culture in dog parks in Portland, Ore., was initially recognized for excellence by the journal Gender, Place, and Culture, the authors reported.

The hoax was dubbed “Sokal Squared,” after a similar stunt pulled in 1996 by Alan Sokal, then a physicist at New York University.

After their ruse was revealed, the three authors described their project in an October article in the webzine Areo, which Pluckrose edits. Their goal, they wrote, was to “to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research.” They contend that scholarship that tends to social grievances now dominates some fields, where students and others are bullied into adhering to scholars’ worldviews, while lax publishing standards allow the publication of clearly ludicrous articles if the topic is politically fashionable.

[…]

In November the investigating committee reported that the dog-park article contained knowingly fabricated data and thus constituted research misconduct. The review board also determined that the hoax project met the definition for human-subjects research because it involved interacting with journal editors and reviewers. Any research involving human subjects (even duped journal editors, apparently) needs IRB approval first, according to university policy.

“Your efforts to conduct human-subjects research at PSU without a submitted nor approved protocol is a clear violation of the policies of your employer,” McLellan wrote in an email to Boghossian.

The decision to move ahead with disciplinary action came after a group of faculty members published a letter in the student newspaper decrying the hoax as “lies peddled to journals, masquerading as articles.” These “lies” are designed “not to critique, educate, or inspire change in flawed systems,” they wrote, “but rather to humiliate entire fields while the authors gin up publicity for themselves without having made any scholarly contributions whatsoever.” Such behavior, they wrote, hurts the reputations of the university as well as honest scholars who work there. “Worse yet, it jeopardizes the students’ reputations, as their degrees in the process may become devalued.”

[…]

Meanwhile, within the first 24 hours of news leaking about the proceedings against him, more than 100 scholars had written letters defending Boghossian, according to his media site, which posted some of them.

Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, was among the high-profile scholars who defended him. “Criticism and open debate are the lifeblood of academia; they are what differentiate universities from organs of dogma and propaganda,” Pinker wrote. “If scholars feel they have been subject to unfair criticism, they should explain why they think the critic is wrong. It should be beneath them to try to punish and silence him.”

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, author, and professor emeritus at the University of Oxford, had this to say: “If the members of your committee of inquiry object to the very idea of satire as a form of creative expression, they should come out honestly and say so. But to pretend that this is a matter of publishing false data is so obviously ridiculous that one cannot help suspecting an ulterior motive.”

Sokal, who is now at University College London, wrote that Boghossian’s hoax had served the public interest and that the university would become a “laughingstock” in academe as well as the public sphere if it insisted that duping editors constituted research on human subjects.

One of Boghossian’s co-author, Lindsay, urged him in the video they posted to emphasize that the project amounted to an audit of certain sectors of academic research. “People inside the system aren’t allowed to question the system? What kind of Orwellian stuff is that?” Lindsay asked.

Source: Proceedings Start Against ‘Sokal Squared’ Hoax Professor – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Pots and kettles? I think it’s just the American way of getting back at someone who has made you blush – destroy at all costs!

T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T Are Selling Customers’ Real-Time Location Data, And It’s Falling Into the Wrong Hands

Nervously, I gave a bounty hunter a phone number. He had offered to geolocate a phone for me, using a shady, overlooked service intended not for the cops, but for private individuals and businesses. Armed with just the number and a few hundred dollars, he said he could find the current location of most phones in the United States.

The bounty hunter sent the number to his own contact, who would track the phone. The contact responded with a screenshot of Google Maps, containing a blue circle indicating the phone’s current location, approximate to a few hundred metres.

Queens, New York. More specifically, the screenshot showed a location in a particular neighborhood—just a couple of blocks from where the target was. The hunter had found the phone (the target gave their consent to Motherboard to be tracked via their T-Mobile phone.)

The bounty hunter did this all without deploying a hacking tool or having any previous knowledge of the phone’s whereabouts. Instead, the tracking tool relies on real-time location data sold to bounty hunters that ultimately originated from the telcos themselves, including T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint, a Motherboard investigation has found. These surveillance capabilities are sometimes sold through word-of-mouth networks.

Whereas it’s common knowledge that law enforcement agencies can track phones with a warrant to service providers, IMSI catchers, or until recently via other companies that sell location data such as one called Securus, at least one company, called Microbilt, is selling phone geolocation services with little oversight to a spread of different private industries, ranging from car salesmen and property managers to bail bondsmen and bounty hunters, according to sources familiar with the company’s products and company documents obtained by Motherboard. Compounding that already highly questionable business practice, this spying capability is also being resold to others on the black market who are not licensed by the company to use it, including me, seemingly without Microbilt’s knowledge.

Source: T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T Are Selling Customers’ Real-Time Location Data, And It’s Falling Into the Wrong Hands

Welcome to 2019: Your Exchange server can be pwned by an email (and other bugs need fixing)

Among the 49 bug fixes were patches for remote code execution flaws in DHCP (CVE-2019-0547) and an Exchange memory corruption flaw (CVE-2019-0586) that Trend Micro ZDI researcher Dustin Childs warns is particularly dangerous as it can be exploited simply by sending an email to a vulnerable server.

“That’s a bit of a problem, as receiving emails is a big part of what Exchange is meant to do,” Childs explained.

“Microsoft lists this as Important in severity, but taking over an Exchange server by simply sending it an email puts this in the Critical category to me. If you use Exchange, definitely put this high on your test and deploy list.”

Source: Welcome to 2019: Your Exchange server can be pwned by an email (and other bugs need fixing) • The Register