AI tool uses selfies to predict biological age and cancer survival
Three pedestrians take a selfie on the picturesque alleyway at the end of Rue de l'Universite, Paris
By Issam AHMED
Doctors often start exams with the so-called "eyeball test" -- a snap judgment about whether the patient appears older or younger than their age, which can influence key medical decisions.
That intuitive assessment may soon get an AI upgrade.
FaceAge, a deep learning algorithm described in The Lancet Digital Health, converts a simple headshot into a number that more accurately reflects a person's biological age rather than the birthday on their chart.
Trained on tens of thousands of photographs, it pegged cancer patients on average as biologically five years older than healthy peers. The study's authors say it could help doctors decide who can safely tolerate punishing treatments, and who might fare better with a gentler approach.
"We hypothesize that FaceAge could be used as a biomarker in cancer care to quantify a patient's biological age and help a doctor make these tough decisions," said co-senior author Raymond Mak, an oncologist at Mass Brigham Health, a Harvard-affiliated health system in Boston.
Consider two hypothetical patients: a spry 75‑year‑old whose biological age clocks in at 65, and a frail 60‑year‑old whose biology reads 70. Aggressive radiation might be appropriate for the former but risky for the latter.
The same logic could help guide decisions about heart surgery, hip replacements or end-of-life care.
Growing evidence shows humans age at different rates, shaped by genes, stress, exercise, and habits like smoking or drinking. While pricey genetic tests can reveal how DNA wears over time, FaceAge promises insight using only a selfie.
The model was trained on 58,851 portraits of presumed-healthy adults over 60, culled from public datasets.
It was then tested on 6,196 cancer patients treated in the United States and the Netherlands, using photos snapped just before radiotherapy. Patients with malignancies looked on average 4.79 years older biologically than their chronological age.
Among cancer patients, a higher FaceAge score strongly predicted worse survival -- even after accounting for actual age, sex, and tumor type -- and the hazard rose steeply for anyone whose biological reading tipped past 85.
Intriguingly, FaceAge appears to weigh the signs of aging differently than humans do. For example, being gray-haired or balding matters less than subtle changes in facial muscle tone.
FaceAge boosted doctors' accuracy, too. Eight physicians were asked to examine headshots of terminal cancer patients and guess who would die within six months. Their success rate barely beat chance; with FaceAge data in hand, predictions improved sharply.
The model even affirmed a favorite internet meme, estimating actor Paul Rudd's biological age as 43 in a photo taken when he was 50.
AI tools have faced scrutiny for under‑serving non-white people. Mak said preliminary checks revealed no significant racial bias in FaceAge's predictions, but the group is training a second‑generation model on 20,000 patients.
They're also probing how factors like makeup, cosmetic surgery or room lighting variations could fool the system.
Ethics debates loom large. An AI that can read biological age from a selfie could prove a boon for clinicians, but also tempting for life insurers or employers seeking to gauge risk.
"It is for sure something that needs attention, to assure that these technologies are used only in the benefit for the patient," said Hugo Aerts, the study's co-lead who directs MGB's AI in medicine program.
Another dilemma: What happens when the mirror talks back? Learning that your body is biologically older than you thought may spur healthy changes -- or sow anxiety.
The researchers are planning to open a public-facing FaceAge portal where people can upload their own pictures to enroll in a research study to further validate the algorithm. Commercial versions aimed at clinicians may follow, but only after more validation.
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
4 days ago
- Japan Today
Climate action could save half of world's vanishing glaciers, says study
A tourist explores the Ritacuba Blanco glacier at the Natural National Park Nevado El Cocuy in Boyaca Department, Colombia, on April 19, 2024 By Issam AHMED More than three-quarters of the world's glaciers are set to vanish if climate change continues unchecked, a major new study warns, fueling sea-level rise and jeopardizing water supplies for billions. Published in Science, the international analysis provides the clearest picture yet of long-term glacier loss, revealing that every fraction of a degree in global temperature rise significantly worsens the outlook. It may sound grim, but co-lead author Harry Zekollari, a glaciologist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and ETH Zurich, told AFP the findings should be seen as a "message of hope." Under existing climate policies, global temperatures are projected to reach 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100 -- a pathway that would ultimately erase 76 percent of current glacier mass over the coming centuries. But if warming is held to the Paris Agreement's 1.5C target, 54 percent of glacial mass could be preserved, according to the study, which combined outputs from eight glacier models to simulate ice loss across a range of future climate scenarios. "What is really special about this study is we can really show how every tenth of a degree of additional warming matters," co-lead author Lilian Schuster of the University of Innsbruck told AFP. The paper's release comes as Swiss authorities monitor flood risks following the collapse of the massive Birch Glacier, which destroyed an evacuated village. While Swiss glaciers have been heavily impacted by climate change, it remains unclear how much the latest disaster was driven by warming versus natural geological forces. Glaciers are found on every continent except Australia -- from Mount Kilimanjaro to the Austrian Alps and the Karakoram range in Pakistan. While most are clustered in the polar regions, their presence in mountain ranges across the world makes them vital to local ecosystems, agriculture and human communities. Vast bodies of snow, ice, rock, and sediment that gain mass in winter and lose it in summer, glaciers formed in the Earth's deep past when conditions were far colder than today. Their meltwater sustains rivers critical for farming, fisheries, and drinking water. Their loss can have profound ripple effects, from disrupting tourism economies to eroding cultural heritage. In recent years, symbolic glacier funerals have been held in Iceland, Switzerland and Mexico. "The question I always get is, why are you a glaciologist in Belgium?" said Zekollari. "Well -- sea level rise. Glaciers melt everywhere on Earth... and that affects coastal defenses even in places far from mountains." Around 25 percent of current sea-level rise is attributed to glacier melt. Even if all fossil fuel use stopped today, the study finds that 39 percent of glacier mass loss is already locked in -- enough to raise sea levels by at least 113 millimeters. One key finding of the study is that some glaciers are far more vulnerable than others -- and the global average obscures drastic regional losses. Glaciers in the European Alps, the Rockies of the U.S. and Canada, and Iceland are expected to lose nearly all their ice at 2C of warming -- the fallback goal of the Paris accord. In the central and eastern Himalayas, whose rivers support hundreds of millions of people, only 25 percent of glacier ice would remain at 2C. By contrast, the west of the range may retain 60 percent of its ice at the same temperature thanks to its wide range of elevations, which allows some glaciers to persist at colder, higher altitudes, said Shuster. Glacier loss is already affecting communities. In a related commentary in Science, Cymene Howe and Dominic Boyer of Rice University describe how the retreat of Oregon's Glisan Glacier has imperiled orchards, fisheries, and the cultural heritage of the Indigenous Quinault people. "Unfortunately we'll lose a lot, but with ambitious targets we can still save many of these glaciers -- which are not only beautiful, but vital for water supply, sea-level regulation, tourism, hydroelectricity, spiritual values, ecology, and more," said Zekollari. © 2025 AFP
Yomiuri Shimbun
25-05-2025
- Yomiuri Shimbun
‘Toxic Positivity' Denies Real Feelings. Here's How to Do Better.
I was recently texting with a friend when he paused for a moment before writing back: Him: 'Full disclosure here. I'm having a biopsy next week for a growth on my bladder.' Me: 'Thanks for telling me. … You know I had testicular cancer? One of my hard-won mantras in life: wait to worry.' Him: 'I am not one to be consumed with worry. However, I know your words are with good intention, but have you heard of the term 'toxic positivity?'' Me: 'Yes, kinda. …' To be honest, 'kinda' was stretching the truth. I'd heard 'toxic positivity' as a buzzword, but I hadn't really thought about its meaning – surely it would never apply to me, right? Now, I wondered: Why did 'wait to worry,' a comment I intended to be helpful, provoke the rebuke? The term 'toxic positivity' has gained popularity in recent years to describe an unhealthy way of tamping down negative emotions for the sake of staying positive. Google Trends shows that searches for 'toxic positivity' began to emerge in 2019, with increasing discussion in texts and blogs, and new studies, and even a 2022 book, 'Toxic Positivity: Keeping It Real in a World Obsessed with Being Happy,' by Whitney Goodman. Graham Reynolds, a psychologist and adjunct professor at Columbia University, put it like this: 'Toxic positivity occurs when encouraging statements are expected to minimize or eliminate painful emotions, creating pressure to be unrealistically optimistic without considering the circumstances of the situation.' Harvard psychologist Susan David phrased it even more succinctly, calling it 'emotional suppression.' Mental health impact As I thought back to the chat I'd had with my friend, I realized I'd inadvertently negated his anxiety about a possible cancer diagnosis. Instead, I'd have been more helpful if I'd acknowledged his fear head on, telling him, 'That's scary. What can I do for you?' (Even better, 'Can I do some research for you?' Or, 'Would you like me to come with you to your next appointment?') I also decided to ask several experts for examples, and this is what I heard. Their suggestions focus on how to validate someone's feelings and not reconfigure their life into a Hallmark movie, with its requisite happy ending. Don't say: 'Just stay positive.' Do say: 'That must be a hard situation for you.' Don't say: 'Everything happens for a reason' or 'When a door closes, a window opens.' Do say: 'I'm sorry you're going through this.' Don't say: 'Look on the bright side.' Do say: 'This sucks. How can I support you?' While I'd begun to understand the drawbacks to toxic positivity, which is sometimes referred to as 'forced false positivity,' David gave me even greater context. Distinctions are made between positive emotions (happiness, joy), which are 'perceived to be good and wonderful,' and negative feelings (anger, grief, anxiety), David said, and many mental health professionals try to quickly steer their patients away from the latter, which are often considered unhealthy or counterproductive in processing loss. But David called tamping down those feelings perceived as negative a form of denial. Toxic positivity means using language that 'sounds good on the surface, but really what you're saying is 'my comfort is more important than your reality.' Sometimes we use glib phrases just to be positive because we are uncomfortable by the conversation,' she said. I thought back to the texts with my friend and my use of 'wait to worry.' True, I hadn't let him fully express his fear and anxiety, and that was, at least in part, because it made me uncomfortable. I remembered the many long months, now decades ago, when I'd been in the midst of cancer treatments. When asked how I was, I often replied, 'Fine,' which even then I knew was skirting my feelings. The alternative? 'I'm nauseated. I have mouth sores. I'm constipated. I'm terrified.' In not being able to share the emotional truth of two surgeries and four rounds of chemo, I was isolating myself, which limited my ability to draw on support from those closest to me. Long before it had a name, I'd drunk the 'toxic positivity' Kool-Aid. David returned to her theme of 'emotional suppression,' including instances when it's self-inflicted. 'It's where you have this idea that I'm feeling sad but I shouldn't be sad because a lot of people have it worse than me, or I should just be grateful,' she said. I was thinking to myself, 'What's so bad about that?' when she explained, 'to suppress our emotions or push them aside has a real impact on our long-term well-being.' By that she meant it can harm our psychological health, which hinders our ability to problem-solve (say around decisions involving insurance or treatment), to get crucial support, and to do what psychologists often call 'sense making,' which is how we draw meaning from an experience. David added, 'Sense-making is actually a crucial part of life and of recovery, the ability to move forward.' During my illness and for years after, I plowed on, which is to say I resumed regular programming as soon as I could. I took no stock or time to deal with the complex emotions that cancer unearthed, which I now can see kept me stuck. To others I was the happy, fearless cancer warrior. At night, I lay awake overcome by fear. But denying our own feelings or having them suppressed by others has other consequences. In a 2024 article, 'The Dark Side of #PositiveVibes: Understanding Toxic Positivity in Modern Culture,' Zoe Wyatt, a therapist and researcher specializing in trauma, wrote that the 'invalidation of genuine human emotional experiences' can lead to adverse psychological outcomes, including increased stress, reduced emotional resilience and harm to our interpersonal relationships, as well as mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and psychosomatic disorders. Put another way, it can prevent us from processing or dealing with genuine emotional experiences. So, what can we do? Experts suggest a number of steps to avoid indulging in toxic positivity: – Recognize others' emotions: Don't dismiss them with platitudes like 'just stay positive' or 'it could be worse.' – Acknowledge your own feelings: Allow yourself to feel sadness, grief or fear without judgment. – Don't categorize emotions as 'good' or 'bad': Instead, as David advised, think of all emotions as leading you to greater compassion, curiosity and acceptance. All emotions are data that can help you find your way through challenging times. As for my friend, the one waiting to hear the results of a bladder biopsy, he's just fine. No cancer found.
Japan Today
21-05-2025
- Japan Today
U.S. to limit COVID boosters to over-65s or those at high risk
A pharmacy advertises the COVID-19 vaccine as the nation marks the fifth anniversary of the Covid-19 pandemic on March 13, 2025 in New York City By Issam AHMED The United States will limit COVID-19 boosters to people over 65 or those at risk of serious illness, while requiring vaccine makers to run fresh clinical trials before offering shots to younger and healthier individuals, officials said. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration's Vinayak Prasad and Commissioner Martin Makary framed the policy shift as "evidence-based" and would align the United States more closely with guidance in Europe. But it comes as Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a longtime vaccine skeptic, pushes to remake federal public health policy. Kennedy previously led a nonprofit that was critical of immunization programs, and during the pandemic petitioned the FDA to revoke COVID vaccine authorizations, citing rare side effects including heart inflammation. Prasad and Makary praised the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout as "a major scientific, medical, and regulatory accomplishment," but argued that the benefits of repeated boosters for low-risk individuals are uncertain. They criticized the U.S. approach of recommending boosters for all adults regardless of age or health status, calling it a "one-size-fits-all" model based on the mistaken belief that Americans couldn't handle more nuanced, risk-based advice. Rather than building public trust, they wrote, it had backfired -- fueling vaccine hesitancy that has spilled over into skepticism toward childhood shots, including those for measles. The FDA said it would rely on lab test results to approve boosters for people who are over 65, or over six months old with at least one underlying condition. But for healthy individuals between six months and 64 years, regulators will now require data from randomized trials. "We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI (body mass index) who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," they wrote. Some infectious disease experts welcomed the shift. Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins University said it matched with the approach taken by other countries in a population that already carries significant immunity. "For lower-risk individuals, the goal has always been less clear, as protection against infection is transient and they don't have a high risk of severe disease," he told AFP. But others voiced concern about the practical consequences. Paul Offit, a leading vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said it could limit access for people who still want boosters. "Any use, say in a healthy 35-year-old, would be considered off-label, and you wonder whether an insurance company would pay for it," he told AFP. Under the revised framework, companies like Pfizer and Moderna will be encouraged to test updated boosters in adults aged 50 to 64. These studies should measure whether the vaccines reduce symptomatic infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Rather than comparing new shots to earlier formulations, Prasad and Makary suggested placebo-controlled trials -- with saline as the comparator -- to better evaluate both benefit and potential side effects. The proposal, first floated by Kennedy earlier this month, has proved divisive. Critics argue that using a placebo -- when authorized vaccines already exist -- could expose participants to unnecessary harm. "Imagine if there was a death or two in the placebo group," said Offit. "I don't see how you conscience that." Supporters of continued COVID-19 boosters often draw parallels to annual flu shots. But Makary and Prasad pushed back on that comparison, arguing the genetic changes in COVID variants haven't been significant enough to justify automatically updating the vaccine each year. The FDA officials also sought to reassure Americans concerned they might lose access to boosters under the new framework. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) definition of risk factors is "vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression," they wrote, noting that between 100 million and 200 million Americans would likely still qualify. © 2025 AFP
