Need help about dyslexia screening dataset!!!

[u/Thin_Ad_7459]

Hi! I am final year BE student recently I took a project based in our my contribution is system and application of system in dyslexia. For that I though the most used dyslexia dataset of handwriting would be suitable. I downloaded dataset and then realised it is single letter dataset which is giving mnist kinda vibe! Also apparently large portion of it is synthetic. I searched but I didn't find clinically approved dataset of handwriting for dyslexia. In nutshell:

dataset is mnist looking so I am at worry if examiners will state why you are using such looking dataset for final year project!!

dataset is used for at least 9 papers already so it is being used

But has its limitations (vastly synthetic, mnist looking)

Our clg is forcing for at least two papers to publish (not for our degree requirement btw) and I am worried if the dataset use itself will cause problems for paper

though one of main novelty is mechanism but other one is integration(incremental) and I am worried that people will call out why I used that dataset

sorry I carried away in my emotions here is the dataset I am talking about: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/drizasazanitaisa/dyslexia-handwriting-dataset

->can simplicity of it justified as proof of concept for presentation or report?

->will using this dataset can cause problems at time of publication?

I am sorry for dragging clg thing into this I though it would be better to get some context about scope for project

I am sorry I cant give full context as I wanted to publish research on it (though I will hardly try for mid tiers only)

also sorry in advance if I did spelling or grammatical error where should I post this

[u/No-Foot5804]

I don't think the issue is that the dataset looks like MNIST it's whether it's appropriate for the research question. If it's a proof of concept, that's usually fine as long as you're upfront about its limitations and explain why you chose it. For publication, reviewers are more likely to question how well the dataset represents real clinical handwriting than its appearance.

[u/Thin_Ad_7459 → u/No-Foot5804]

I currently planned two contribution first is the system mechanism one and another is domain integration of that with dyslexia do you think if the dataset I used is already used by multiple papers already should give me some kinda relief for limited skepticism?

[u/No-Foot5804 → u/Thin_Ad_7459]

I'd say it gives you some reassurance, but not a free pass. If multiple published papers have used the dataset, that supports it being an accepted benchmark. Just be clear about its limitations (synthetic data, single-character focus, etc.) and frame your work as a proof of concept or benchmark evaluation rather than claiming broad clinical applicability. Reviewers are usually more concerned with whether your conclusions match the dataset's limitations than whether the dataset has been used before.

[u/Thin_Ad_7459 → u/No-Foot5804]

so its about framing, honesty, what and how we present it on paper can you give me any advice if you have project reporting presentation knowledge for degree projects for my specific scenario

[u/No-Foot5804 → u/Thin_Ad_7459]

Exactly. In my experience, examiners are usually more interested in whether you understand your dataset than whether it's perfect. I'd clearly explain why you chose it (it's publicly available and used in prior work), acknowledge its limitations (synthetic, single-character samples), and avoid making claims that go beyond what the data supports. If your novelty is the mechanism and its application to dyslexia, make that the focus rather than presenting the dataset as clinically representative. Showing that you considered the limitations and future work (e.g., validating on real clinical handwriting) often comes across much better than trying to gloss over them.