Approximating facial expression effects on diagnostic accuracy via generative AI in medical genetics.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in genomics research and practice, and generative AI has garnered significant recent attention. In clinical applications of generative AI, aspects of the underlying datasets can impact results, and confounders should be studied and mitigated. One example involves the facial expressions of people with genetic conditions. Stereotypically, Williams (WS) and Angelman (AS) syndromes are associated with a "happy" demeanor, including a smiling expression. Clinical geneticists may be more likely to identify these conditions in images of smiling individuals. To study the impact of facial expression, we analyzed publicly available facial images of approximately 3500 individuals with genetic conditions. Using a deep learning (DL) image classifier, we found that WS and AS images with non-smiling expressions had significantly lower prediction probabilities for the correct syndrome labels than those with smiling expressions. This was not seen for 22q11.2 deletion and Noonan syndromes, which are not associated with a smiling expression. To further explore the effect of facial expressions, we computationally altered the facial expressions for these images. We trained HyperStyle, a GAN-inversion technique compatible with StyleGAN2, to determine the vector representations of our images. Then, following the concept of InterfaceGAN, we edited these vectors to recreate the original images in a phenotypically accurate way but with a different facial expression. Through online surveys and an eye-tracking experiment, we examined how altered facial expressions affect the performance of human experts. We overall found that facial expression is associated with diagnostic accuracy variably in different genetic conditions.

Recognition of Genetic Conditions After Learning With Images Created Using Generative Artificial Intelligence.

Importance: The lack of standardized genetics training in pediatrics residencies, along with a shortage of medical geneticists, necessitates innovative educational approaches. Objective: To compare pediatric resident recognition of Kabuki syndrome (KS) and Noonan syndrome (NS) after 1 of 4 educational interventions, including generative artificial intelligence (AI) methods. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study used generative AI to create images of children with KS and NS. From October 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023, US pediatric residents were provided images through a web-based survey to assess whether these images helped them recognize genetic conditions. Interventions: Participants categorized 20 images after exposure to 1 of 4 educational interventions (text-only descriptions, real images, and 2 types of images created by generative AI). Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations between educational interventions with accuracy and self-reported confidence. Results: Of 2515 contacted pediatric residents, 106 and 102 completed the KS and NS surveys, respectively. For KS, the sensitivity of text description was 48.5% (128 of 264), which was not significantly different from random guessing (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.29; P = .71). Sensitivity was thus compared for real images vs random guessing (60.3% [188 of 312]; OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.00; P = .003) and 2 types of generative AI images vs random guessing (57.0% [212 of 372]; OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69; P = .02 and 59.6% [193 of 324]; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.12-1.94; P = .006) (denominators differ according to survey responses). The sensitivity of the NS text-only description was 65.3% (196 of 300). Compared with text-only, the sensitivity of the real images was 74.3% (205 of 276; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18; P = .02), and the sensitivity of the 2 types of images created by generative AI was 68.0% (204 of 300; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.77-1.66; P = .54) and 71.0% (247 of 328; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.83; P = .14). For specificity, no intervention was statistically different from text only. After the interventions, the number of participants who reported being unsure about important diagnostic facial features decreased from 56 (52.8%) to 5 (7.6%) for KS (P < .001) and 25 (24.5%) to 4 (4.7%) for NS (P < .001). There was a significant association between confidence level and sensitivity for real and generated images. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, real and generated images helped participants recognize KS and NS; real images appeared most helpful. Generated images were noninferior to real images and could serve an adjunctive role, particularly for rare conditions.

Comparison of clinical geneticist and computer visual attention in assessing genetic conditions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) for facial diagnostics is increasingly used in the genetics clinic to evaluate patients with potential genetic conditions. Current approaches focus on one type of AI called Deep Learning (DL). While DL- based facial diagnostic platforms have a high accuracy rate for many conditions, less is understood about how this technology assesses and classifies (categorizes) images, and how this compares to humans. To compare human and computer attention, we performed eye-tracking analyses of geneticist clinicians (n = 22) and non-clinicians (n = 22) who viewed images of people with 10 different genetic conditions, as well as images of unaffected individuals. We calculated the Intersection-over-Union (IoU) and Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL) to compare the visual attentions of the two participant groups, and then the clinician group against the saliency maps of our deep learning classifier. We found that human visual attention differs greatly from DL model's saliency results. Averaging over all the test images, IoU and KL metric for the successful (accurate) clinician visual attentions versus the saliency maps were 0.15 and 11.15, respectively. Individuals also tend to have a specific pattern of image inspection, and clinicians demonstrate different visual attention patterns than non-clinicians (IoU and KL of clinicians versus non-clinicians were 0.47 and 2.73, respectively). This study shows that humans (at different levels of expertise) and a computer vision model examine images differently. Understanding these differences can improve the design and use of AI tools, and lead to more meaningful interactions between clinicians and AI technologies.

Generative Methods for Pediatric Genetics Education.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in an increasing number of areas, with recent interest in generative AI, such as using ChatGPT to generate programming code or DALL-E to make illustrations. We describe the use of generative AI in medical education. Specifically, we sought to determine whether generative AI could help train pediatric residents to better recognize genetic conditions. From publicly available images of individuals with genetic conditions, we used generative AI methods to create new images, which were checked for accuracy with an external classifier. We selected two conditions for study, Kabuki (KS) and Noonan (NS) syndromes, which are clinically important conditions that pediatricians may encounter. In this study, pediatric residents completed 208 surveys, where they each classified 20 images following exposure to one of 4 possible educational interventions, including with and without generative AI methods. Overall, we find that generative images perform similarly but appear to be slightly less helpful than real images. Most participants reported that images were useful, although real images were felt to be more helpful. We conclude that generative AI images may serve as an adjunctive educational tool, particularly for less familiar conditions, such as KS.

Human and computer attention in assessing genetic conditions.

Deep learning (DL) and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly used in many biomedical areas, including genetics. One frequent use in medical genetics involves evaluating images of people with potential genetic conditions to help with diagnosis. A central question involves better understanding how AI classifiers assess images compared to humans. To explore this, we performed eye-tracking analyses of geneticist clinicians and non-clinicians. We compared results to DL-based saliency maps. We found that human visual attention when assessing images differs greatly from the parts of images weighted by the DL model. Further, individuals tend to have a specific pattern of image inspection, and clinicians demonstrate different visual attention patterns than non-clinicians.

Application of facial analysis Technology in Clinical Genetics: Considerations for diverse populations.

Facial analysis technology in rare diseases has the potential to shorten the diagnostic odyssey by providing physicians with a valuable diagnostic tool. Given that most clinical genetic resources focus on populations of European descent, we compare craniofacial features in genetic syndromes across different populations and review how machine learning algorithms perform on diagnosing genetic syndromes in geographically and ethnically diverse populations. We also discuss the value of populations from ancestrally diverse backgrounds in the training set of machine learning algorithms. Finally, this review demonstrates that across diverse population groups, machine learning models have outstanding accuracy as supported by the area under the curve values greater than 0.9. Artificial intelligence is only in its infancy in the diagnosis of rare disease in diverse populations and will become more accurate as larger and more diverse training sets, including a wider spectrum of ages, particularly infants, are studied.

Bridging the language gap - A call for the wider use of Human phenotype ontology by non-geneticist clinicians when requesting genomic tests.

Advances in genomic technology including the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) have enabled the identification of thousands of variations at a time, allowing the discovery of novel genetic diseases. Given the volume of data generated by these investigations, attention is drawn towards reporting relevant clinical features by clinicians to guide the diagnosis and management of their patients. The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) developed in 2008, revolutionized the semantic vocabulary of phenotypic descriptions in genomic medicine allowing researchers, laboratories and clinical geneticists to better understand each other. In this era of personalized medicine where genetic tests are becoming more accessible, non-geneticist clinicians are expected to be more involved than ever in the process of ordering genetic tests and interpreting genetic reports. It is therefore essential that they understand and adequately apply HPO nomenclature to integrate the patient care chain and seize the opportunity offered by this tailored language. The current article highlights the importance of using HPO vocabularies in clinical practice and advocates for its wider use by non-geneticist clinicians. Correct use of HPO will reduce misunderstandings between healthcare professionals and ultimately improve the healthcare system.

Perspectives on the future of dysmorphology.

The field of clinical genetics and genomics continues to evolve. In the past few decades, milestones like the initial sequencing of the human genome, dramatic changes in sequencing technologies, and the introduction of artificial intelligence, have upended the field and offered fascinating new insights. Though difficult to predict the precise paths the field will follow, rapid change may continue to be inevitable. Within genetics, the practice of dysmorphology, as defined by pioneering geneticist David W. Smith in the 1960s as "the study of, or general subject of abnormal development of tissue form" has also been affected by technological advances as well as more general trends in biomedicine. To address possibilities, potential, and perils regarding the future of dysmorphology, a group of clinical geneticists, representing different career stages, areas of focus, and geographic regions, have contributed to this piece by providing insights about how the practice of dysmorphology will develop over the next several decades.