What is FaceAge, the AI tool that can tell how healthy you are from a selfie?
Known as FaceAge, it is modelled after what physicians call 'the eyeball test,' a quick visual assessment made by doctors to gauge a patient's overall condition at a glance. The AI tool has been developed by researchers at Mass General Brigham, a non-profit, integrated healthcare initiative, in Boston, United States. Their research paper on the deep learning system was also published in the Lancet Digital Health on May 8, 2025.
The developers of the AI tool have said that they expect to conduct a pilot study with about 50 patients starting next week. This means that FaceAge is yet to undergo proper testing before it can be deployed in hospitals to be used by doctors routinely.
FaceAge is essentially powered by a deep learning algorithm that has been trained and developed to tell patients' biological age from a selfie. However, the tool is designed to provide a patient's age in health (biological age) and not in years (chronological age).
A person's biological age is considered to be important because it could help doctors determine the most appropriate treatment for them. For example, doctors could prescribe a more aggressive treatment for a cancer patient if their biological age indicates that they are healthy enough to tolerate it.
'We found that doctors on average can predict life expectancy with an accuracy that's only a little better than a coin flip when using a photo alone for their analysis,' Dr Raymond Mak, a radiation oncologist at Mass General Brigham and one of the co-authors of the study was quoted as saying by Washington Post.
'Some doctors would hesitate to offer cancer treatment to someone in their late 80s or 90s with the rationale that the patient may die of other causes before the cancer progresses and becomes life-threatening,' Dr Mak added.
At a press conference held last week, he recalled the case of an 86-year-old man with terminal lung cancer. 'But he looked younger than 86 to me, and based on the eyeball test and a host of other factors, I decided to treat him with aggressive radiation therapy,' he said.
Four years later, Dr Mak said he used FaceAge to analyse the lung cancer patient's face. 'We found he's more than 10 years younger than his chronological age. The patient is now 90 and still doing great,' he said.
Mass General Brigham researchers said that FaceAge's training datasets comprised 9,000 photographs of people ages 60 and older who were presumed to be healthy.
A majority of the photos were downloaded from Wikipedia and IMDb, the internet movie database. The AI system was also trained using a large-scale dataset sourced from UTKFace, which comprised pictures of people between one year to 116 years old.
'It is important to know that the algorithm looks at age differently than humans do. So, for example, being bald or not, or being grey is less important in the algorithm than we actually initially thought,' Hugo Aerts, one of the co-authors of the study, said.
The study noted that no face photographs of patients and other clinical datasets were used to train the AI tool.
Researchers of the study have emphasised that FaceAge is not meant to replace but enhance a doctor's visual assessment of a patient, otherwise known as the 'eyeball test'.
The deep learning system has also undergone some testing. FaceAge was tested on photographs of over 6,200 cancer patients. These images of the patients were captured before they underwent radiotherapy treatment. The AI algorithm determined that the patients' biological age was on average five years older than their chronological age.
The survival outlook of these patients provided by FaceAge was also dependent on how old their faces looked.
In another experiment, the researchers asked eight doctors to tell whether patients who had terminal cancer would be alive in six months. When doctors relied only on a patient's photograph to make their prediction, they were right 61 per cent of the time. That figure rose to 73 per cent when doctors relied on the photograph as well as clinical information.
The doctors' reached an even higher accuracy of 80 per cent when using FaceAge, along with information on medical charts.
The study also noted that an older-looking face does not necessarily lead the AI tool to predict a poor health outcome. After analysing photos of actors Paul Rudd and Wilford Brimley (when both were aged 50), FaceAge determined that Rudd's biological age was 43 and Brimley's was 69, as per the study. However, Brimley died in August, 2020, at 85-years-old.
The team behind FaceAge has acknowledged that there is a long way to go before the AI tool is deployed in a real-world clinical setting as there are several risks that need to be effectively addressed.
For instance, privacy has always been a long-standing concern when it comes to AI systems that gather facial data. However, the study noted, 'Our model is configured for the task of age estimation, which, in our opinion, has less embedded societal bias than the task of face recognition.'
Researchers also said that they sought to address potential racial or ethnic bias in the AI tool by quantifying 'model age predictions across different ethnic groups drawn from the UTK validation dataset.' 'The UTK is one of the most ethnically diverse age-labelled face image databases available publicly and, therefore, appropriate for assessing model performance in this regard, with non-White individuals comprising approximately 55% of the database,' it said.
The study also noted that FaceAge is minimally affected by ethnicity as the researchers adjusted for 'ethnicity as a covariate […] in the multivariable analysis of the Harvard clinical datasets.'
Still, the developers of FaceAge have said that strong regulatory oversight and further assessments of bias in the performance of FaceAge across different populations is essential.
'This technology can do a lot of good, but it could also potentially do some harm,' said Hugo Aerts, director of the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine program at Mass General Brigham and another co-author of the study, was quoted as saying.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
India Is Losing Its Best and Brightest
Could Aravind Srinivas have achieved his full potential by remaining in India instead of moving to Silicon Valley? The co-founder and CEO of the AI-powered search engine Perplexity, which Mr. Srinivas, 31, describes as 'a marriage of Wikipedia and ChatGPT,' is the latest tech superstar to be feted by the Indian media. Following a new round of funding this month, Perplexity is valued at $18 billion. Early investors in the startup include Jeff Bezos, former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivas sees search engine behemoth Google as ripe for disruption. On one level, the answer is obvious. Mr. Srinivas couldn't have built a cutting-edge tech company in India, but neither could he have done so in France, Brazil or Russia. The unique mix of talented engineers and risk-taking investors that defines Silicon Valley doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet. But Mr. Srinivas's story also highlights an issue that Indians tend to overlook. The Indian media has published countless laudatory stories about Indian tech titans in the West. According to the Times of India, for instance, the roots of Mr. Srinivas's success lie in his mother's early encouragement to study one day at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology in his hometown, Chennai in Tamil Nadu. Among educated Indians, Google's Sundar Pichai, Microsoft's Satya Nadella, IBM's Arvind Krishna and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen—all Indian-born tech CEOs—are household names. Sanjaya Baru, an Indian author and journalist, believes Indians are too sanguine about a sustained brain drain from their country. In a new book, 'Secession of the Successful,' he points out that nearly 1.9 million Indians renounced their citizenship between 2011 and 2023. That's a small fraction of India's 1.45 billion people, but it includes some of the country's most talented engineers, doctors and scientists. Since independence in 1947, no Indian working in India has won a Nobel Prize in science or a Fields medal, the equivalent in mathematics. The last Indian in India to win a Nobel Prize for science was the physicist C.V. Raman in 1930. A 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that of the top 1,000 students who cleared the grueling nationwide entrance exam for the Indian Institutes of Technology in 2010, 36% had migrated eight years later, mostly to the U.S. At the very top—the top 10 students to clear the exam that year—the migration rate was 90%. 'It's not accurate to look at this as a pinprick on an elephant,' Mr. Baru says in a phone interview from Hyderabad. 'Why has no Indian government been able to get some of the top guns to come back?' Why do so many Indians leave and so few go back? Economic opportunity plays a big part. In purchasing power parity terms, which takes into account the lower cost of most goods and services in poor countries, India's gross domestic product per capita of $11,000 is roughly an eighth of America's $86,000. But it isn't only about money. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, an Indian-born scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009, has pointed out that a lack of infrastructure, excessive bureaucratic and political interference, and overly complex rules make it hard for India to attract scientific talent. India spends only 0.6% to 0.7% of its GDP on research, a far smaller fraction than the U.S. or China. Urban squalor is another problem. The flashy Delhi suburb of Gurugram (formerly Gurgaon) pays a large chunk of the state of Haryana's taxes. But due to a lack of urban planning, and a political class beholden to voters in the countryside, Gurugram lacks a proper drainage system. Videos of luxury cars in Gurugram drowning in murky brown rainwater are a staple of Indian social media. The richest neighborhoods of Bangalore feature garbage rotting on the streets. Delhi has some of the most expensive real estate in Asia and some of the least breathable air in the world. India's failure to retain and attract global talent has geopolitical implications. Over the past two decades, China, with which India shares a disputed 2,200-mile border, has moved aggressively to attract global scientific talent to its shores. In 2008 the Chinese government launched the Thousand Talents Plan to bring top-tier scientific talent to China. Since then scores of high-profile scientists, many of Chinese origin, have moved to Chinese universities and laboratories. The Nature Index, which tracks 'high-quality' research, counts 45 Chinese universities in the top 100. (The U.S. has 31.) The highest ranked Indian institution, the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is ranked 212. Mr. Baru believes that rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the West may make it easier for India to retain or attract back some of its smartest people. But arguably the deeper cause—a political and intellectual culture geared toward redistributive justice rather than individual excellence—may be hard to overcome.
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
India is losing its best and brightest
Could Aravind Srinivas have achieved his full potential by remaining in India instead of moving to Silicon Valley? The co-founder and CEO of the AI-powered search engine Perplexity, which Mr. Srinivas, 31, describes as 'a marriage of Wikipedia and ChatGPT," is the latest tech superstar to be feted by the Indian media. Following a new round of funding this month, Perplexity is valued at $18 billion. Early investors in the startup include Jeff Bezos, former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan. Mr. Srinivas sees search engine behemoth Google as ripe for disruption. On one level, the answer is obvious. Mr. Srinivas couldn't have built a cutting-edge tech company in India, but neither could he have done so in France, Brazil or Russia. The unique mix of talented engineers and risk-taking investors that defines Silicon Valley doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet. But Mr. Srinivas's story also highlights an issue that Indians tend to overlook. The Indian media has published countless laudatory stories about Indian tech titans in the West. According to the Times of India, for instance, the roots of Mr. Srinivas's success lie in his mother's early encouragement to study one day at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology in his hometown, Chennai in Tamil Nadu. Among educated Indians, Google's Sundar Pichai, Microsoft's Satya Nadella, IBM's Arvind Krishna and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen—all Indian-born tech CEOs—are household names. Sanjaya Baru, an Indian author and journalist, believes Indians are too sanguine about a sustained brain drain from their country. In a new book, 'Secession of the Successful," he points out that nearly 1.9 million Indians renounced their citizenship between 2011 and 2023. That's a small fraction of India's 1.45 billion people, but it includes some of the country's most talented engineers, doctors and scientists. Since independence in 1947, no Indian working in India has won a Nobel Prize in science or a Fields medal, the equivalent in mathematics. The last Indian in India to win a Nobel Prize for science was the physicist C.V. Raman in 1930. A 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that of the top 1,000 students who cleared the grueling nationwide entrance exam for the Indian Institutes of Technology in 2010, 36% had migrated eight years later, mostly to the U.S. At the very top—the top 10 students to clear the exam that year—the migration rate was 90%. 'It's not accurate to look at this as a pinprick on an elephant," Mr. Baru says in a phone interview from Hyderabad. 'Why has no Indian government been able to get some of the top guns to come back?" Why do so many Indians leave and so few go back? Economic opportunity plays a big part. In purchasing power parity terms, which takes into account the lower cost of most goods and services in poor countries, India's gross domestic product per capita of $11,000 is roughly an eighth of America's $86,000. But it isn't only about money. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, an Indian-born scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2009, has pointed out that a lack of infrastructure, excessive bureaucratic and political interference, and overly complex rules make it hard for India to attract scientific talent. India spends only 0.6% to 0.7% of its GDP on research, a far smaller fraction than the U.S. or China. Urban squalor is another problem. The flashy Delhi suburb of Gurugram (formerly Gurgaon) pays a large chunk of the state of Haryana's taxes. But due to a lack of urban planning, and a political class beholden to voters in the countryside, Gurugram lacks a proper drainage system. Videos of luxury cars in Gurugram drowning in murky brown rainwater are a staple of Indian social media. The richest neighborhoods of Bangalore feature garbage rotting on the streets. Delhi has some of the most expensive real estate in Asia and some of the least breathable air in the world. India's failure to retain and attract global talent has geopolitical implications. Over the past two decades, China, with which India shares a disputed 2,200-mile border, has moved aggressively to attract global scientific talent to its shores. In 2008 the Chinese government launched the Thousand Talents Plan to bring top-tier scientific talent to China. Since then scores of high-profile scientists, many of Chinese origin, have moved to Chinese universities and laboratories. The Nature Index, which tracks 'high-quality" research, counts 45 Chinese universities in the top 100. (The U.S. has 31.) The highest ranked Indian institution, the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, is ranked 212. Mr. Baru believes that rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the West may make it easier for India to retain or attract back some of its smartest people. But arguably the deeper cause—a political and intellectual culture geared toward redistributive justice rather than individual excellence—may be hard to overcome.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
TikTok asks users to help police misinformation
TikTok will soon let some of its users help fight misinformation on the app, it said Wednesday, following similar moves from Meta and social platform a new feature, Footnotes , TikTok will let a select group of users add context and background information to some of the short videos on the app, along with links to the information's sources. That group -- for now, nearly 80,000 qualified users -- will be able to rate those notes for helpfulness. Those with the highest ratings will be displayed at the bottom of all US users' and Elon Musk 's X previously rolled out "community notes" programs, which have allowed the social media giants to back away from making decisions about what content to remove from their sites, and to avoid making fraught and sometimes politically loaded Meta and X, TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance, said it was not ending any of its fact-checking programs or partnerships as it introduced Footnotes. Meta and X drew criticism for reducing investments in fact-checking and moderation that they had made in response to the viral spread of misinformation online, especially around the 2016 presidential election."Footnotes is not a replacement for content moderation. Rather, it adds context to content on TikTok," a company spokesperson said in an least initially, TikTok will let its contributors cite any sources to back up their Footnotes. The contributor program is open to US users who are 18 or older, had been on the app at least six months as of April and had no recent history of violating TikTok's community guidelines."We do expect that links to fact-checking articles, links to Wikipedia, these will be among some of the examples of what our users are directing to," Erica Ruzic, TikTok's head of integrity and authenticity, said Tuesday at a company trust and safety event before the launch. "But we will let our users decide what they're deeming an authoritative source, to begin."TikTok is drawing attention to safety on its platform after a tumultuous few years in the United States. The app, which boasts 170 million American users, has been fending off a ban under a new federal law that demanded that the company find a non-Chinese owner. President Donald Trump has extended the deadline repeatedly, most recently to the event Tuesday, panelists discussed other harm-reduction efforts on the app, including new features that allow parents to have more oversight of their child's account. It's a reminder that amid all the political turmoil, TikTok also faces the same problems that any other social media company does, including disinformation and safety issues involving children and teenagers.
