An app you could use to vet your dates for sexual infections got shut down

A controversial smartphone application that claimed to detect sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in potential sexual partners has been shut down following an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

HeHealth Inc.’s AI-powered app, Calmara, marketed itself as a quick and confidential way to screen sexual partners for STIs. The app encouraged users to submit genital images, promising “clear, science-backed answers about your partner’s sexual health status” with up to 94.4% accuracy for detecting over 10 conditions, including syphilis, herpes, and human papillomavirus (HPV).

However, the FTC raised concerns about the app’s marketing claims and the scientific evidence supporting them. In a letter dated July 11, 2024, the agency outlined several issues with HeHealth’s substantiation, including:

1. The primary study used to support Calmara’s claims had several authors who were either HeHealth employees or paid consultants.
2. The AI model was trained using images from individuals who hadn’t undergone diagnostic tests to confirm their STI status.
3. The study assessed only four STIs, despite Calmara claiming to detect 10 or more conditions.

Medical professionals questioned the app’s reliability, particularly given that most STIs are asymptomatic. An investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that Calmara struggled to identify even textbook images of STIs.

The app also raised ethical concerns about consent, as it was marketed to women as a tool to vet their dates’ sexual health status.

In response to the FTC’s investigation, HeHealth agreed to shut down both Calmara and its related HeHealth app by July 15, 2024, as highlighted by The Verge. The company also committed to refunding U.S. customers with unfulfilled purchases and deleting all customer personal information obtained through the applications.

While the FTC has closed its investigation due to the small number of U.S. users and sales, it reserved the right to take further action if necessary. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of rigorous scientific evidence in health-related technology and the potential risks associated with AI-powered medical applications.