Greg Corrado

Greg Corrado

Greg Corrado is a senior research scientist interested in biological neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and scalable machine learning. He has published in fields ranging across behavioral economics, neuromorphic device physics, systems neuroscience, and deep learning. At Google he has worked for some time on brain inspired computing, and most recently has served as one of the founding members and the co-technical lead of Google's large scale deep neural networks project.
Authored Publications
Sort By
  • Title
  • Title, descending
  • Year
  • Year, descending
    Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study
    Terry Spitz
    Malcolm Chelliah
    Heather Cole-Lewis
    Stephanie Farquhar
    Qinghan Xue
    Jenna Lester
    Cían Hughes
    Patricia Strachan
    Fraser Tan
    Peggy Bui
    Craig Mermel
    Lily Peng
    Sunny Virmani
    Ivor Horn
    Cameron Chen
    The Lancet eClinicalMedicine(2024)
    Preview abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has repeatedly been shown to encode historical inequities in healthcare. We aimed to develop a framework to quantitatively assess the performance equity of health AI technologies and to illustrate its utility via a case study. Methods Here, we propose a methodology to assess whether health AI technologies prioritise performance for patient populations experiencing worse outcomes, that is complementary to existing fairness metrics. We developed the Health Equity Assessment of machine Learning performance (HEAL) framework designed to quantitatively assess the performance equity of health AI technologies via a four-step interdisciplinary process to understand and quantify domain-specific criteria, and the resulting HEAL metric. As an illustrative case study (analysis conducted between October 2022 and January 2023), we applied the HEAL framework to a dermatology AI model. A set of 5420 teledermatology cases (store-and-forward cases from patients of 20 years or older, submitted from primary care providers in the USA and skin cancer clinics in Australia), enriched for diversity in age, sex and race/ethnicity, was used to retrospectively evaluate the AI model's HEAL metric, defined as the likelihood that the AI model performs better for subpopulations with worse average health outcomes as compared to others. The likelihood that AI performance was anticorrelated to pre-existing health outcomes was estimated using bootstrap methods as the probability that the negated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (i.e., “R”) was greater than zero. Positive values of R suggest that subpopulations with poorer health outcomes have better AI model performance. Thus, the HEAL metric, defined as p (R >0), measures how likely the AI technology is to prioritise performance for subpopulations with worse average health outcomes as compared to others (presented as a percentage below). Health outcomes were quantified as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) when grouping by sex and age, and years of life lost (YLLs) when grouping by race/ethnicity. AI performance was measured as top-3 agreement with the reference diagnosis from a panel of 3 dermatologists per case. Findings Across all dermatologic conditions, the HEAL metric was 80.5% for prioritizing AI performance of racial/ethnic subpopulations based on YLLs, and 92.1% and 0.0% respectively for prioritizing AI performance of sex and age subpopulations based on DALYs. Certain dermatologic conditions were significantly associated with greater AI model performance compared to a reference category of less common conditions. For skin cancer conditions, the HEAL metric was 73.8% for prioritizing AI performance of age subpopulations based on DALYs. Interpretation Analysis using the proposed HEAL framework showed that the dermatology AI model prioritised performance for race/ethnicity, sex (all conditions) and age (cancer conditions) subpopulations with respect to pre-existing health disparities. More work is needed to investigate ways of promoting equitable AI performance across age for non-cancer conditions and to better understand how AI models can contribute towards improving equity in health outcomes. View details
    Assistive AI in Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Multinational Study in the United States and Japan
    Atilla Kiraly
    Corbin Cunningham
    Ryan Najafi
    Jie Yang
    Chuck Lau
    Diego Ardila
    Scott Mayer McKinney
    Rory Pilgrim
    Mozziyar Etemadi
    Sunny Jansen
    Lily Peng
    Shravya Shetty
    Neeral Beladia
    Krish Eswaran
    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence(2024)
    Preview abstract Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death world-wide with 1.8 million deaths in 20201. Studies have concluded that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening can reduce mortality by up to 61%2 and updated 2021 US guidelines expanded eligibility. As screening efforts rise, AI can play an important role, but must be unobtrusively integrated into existing clinical workflows. In this work, we introduce a state-of-the-art, cloud-based AI system providing lung cancer risk assessments without requiring any user input. We demonstrate its efficacy in assisting lung cancer screening under both US and Japanese screening settings using different patient populations and screening protocols. Technical improvements over a previously described system include a focus on earlier cancer detection for improved accuracy, introduction of an effective assistive user interface, and a system designed to integrate into typical clinical workflows. The stand-alone AI system was evaluated on 3085 individuals achieving area under the curve (AUC) scores of 91.7% (95%CI [89.6, 95.2]), 93.3% (95%CI [90.2, 95.7]), and 89.1% (95%CI [77.7, 97.3]) on three datasets (two from US and one from Japan), respectively. To evaluate the system’s assistive ability, we conducted two retrospective multi-reader multi-case studies on 627 cases read by experienced board certified radiologists (average 20 years of experience [7,40]) using local PACS systems in the respective US and Japanese screening settings. The studies measured the reader’s level of suspicion (LoS) and categorical responses for scores and management recommendations under country-specific screening protocols. The radiologists’ AUC for LoS increased with AI assistance by 2.3% (95%CI [0.1-4.5], p=0.022) for the US study and by 2.3% (95%CI [-3.5-8.1], p=0.179) for the Japan study. Specificity for recalls increased by 5.5% (95%CI [2.7-8.5], p<0.0001) for the US and 6.7% (95%CI [4.7-8.7], p<0.0001) for the Japan study. No significant reduction in other metrics occured. This work advances the state-of-the-art in lung cancer detection, introduces generalizable interface concepts that can be applicable to similar AI applications, and demonstrates its potential impact on diagnostic AI in global lung cancer screening with results suggesting a substantial drop in unnecessary follow-up procedures without impacting sensitivity. View details
    Preview abstract Advances in machine learning for health care have brought concerns about bias from the research community; specifically, the introduction, perpetuation, or exacerbation of care disparities. Reinforcing these concerns is the finding that medical images often reveal signals about sensitive attributes in ways that are hard to pinpoint by both algorithms and people. This finding raises a question about how to best design general purpose pretrained embeddings (GPPEs, defined as embeddings meant to support a broad array of use cases) for building downstream models that are free from particular types of bias. The downstream model should be carefully evaluated for bias, and audited and improved as appropriate. However, in our view, well intentioned attempts to prevent the upstream components—GPPEs—from learning sensitive attributes can have unintended consequences on the downstream models. Despite producing a veneer of technical neutrality, the resultant end-to-end system might still be biased or poorly performing. We present reasons, by building on previously published data, to support the reasoning that GPPEs should ideally contain as much information as the original data contain, and highlight the perils of trying to remove sensitive attributes from a GPPE. We also emphasise that downstream prediction models trained for specific tasks and settings, whether developed using GPPEs or not, should be carefully designed and evaluated to avoid bias that makes models vulnerable to issues such as distributional shift. These evaluations should be done by a diverse team, including social scientists, on a diverse cohort representing the full breadth of the patient population for which the final model is intended. View details
    Preview abstract Importance: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) has reached an all-time high, and health care leaders across the ecosystem are faced with questions about where, when, and how to deploy AI and how to understand its risks, problems, and possibilities. Observations: While AI as a concept has existed since the 1950s, all AI is not the same. Capabilities and risks of various kinds of AI differ markedly, and on examination 3 epochs of AI emerge. AI 1.0 includes symbolic AI, which attempts to encode human knowledge into computational rules, as well as probabilistic models. The era of AI 2.0 began with deep learning, in which models learn from examples labeled with ground truth. This era brought about many advances both in people’s daily lives and in health care. Deep learning models are task-specific, meaning they do one thing at a time, and they primarily focus on classification and prediction. AI 3.0 is the era of foundation models and generative AI. Models in AI 3.0 have fundamentally new (and potentially transformative) capabilities, as well as new kinds of risks, such as hallucinations. These models can do many different kinds of tasks without being retrained on a new dataset. For example, a simple text instruction will change the model’s behavior. Prompts such as “Write this note for a specialist consultant” and “Write this note for the patient’s mother” will produce markedly different content. Conclusions and Relevance: Foundation models and generative AI represent a major revolution in AI’s capabilities, ffering tremendous potential to improve care. Health care leaders are making decisions about AI today. While any heuristic omits details and loses nuance, the framework of AI 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 may be helpful to decision-makers because each epoch has fundamentally different capabilities and risks. View details
    Towards Conversational Diagnostic AI
    Anil Palepu
    Khaled Saab
    Jan Freyberg
    Ryutaro Tanno
    Amy Wang
    Brenna Li
    Nenad Tomašev
    Karan Singhal
    Le Hou
    Albert Webson
    Kavita Kulkarni
    Sara Mahdavi
    Juro Gottweis
    Joelle Barral
    Kat Chou
    Arxiv(2024) (to appear)
    Preview abstract At the heart of medicine lies the physician-patient dialogue, where skillful history-taking paves the way for accurate diagnosis, effective management, and enduring trust. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems capable of diagnostic dialogue could increase accessibility, consistency, and quality of care. However, approximating clinicians' expertise is an outstanding grand challenge. Here, we introduce AMIE (Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer), a Large Language Model (LLM) based AI system optimized for diagnostic dialogue. AMIE uses a novel self-play based simulated environment with automated feedback mechanisms for scaling learning across diverse disease conditions, specialties, and contexts. We designed a framework for evaluating clinically-meaningful axes of performance including history-taking, diagnostic accuracy, management reasoning, communication skills, and empathy. We compared AMIE's performance to that of primary care physicians (PCPs) in a randomized, double-blind crossover study of text-based consultations with validated patient actors in the style of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The study included 149 case scenarios from clinical providers in Canada, the UK, and India, 20 PCPs for comparison with AMIE, and evaluations by specialist physicians and patient actors. AMIE demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy and superior performance on 28 of 32 axes according to specialist physicians and 24 of 26 axes according to patient actors. Our research has several limitations and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Clinicians were limited to unfamiliar synchronous text-chat which permits large-scale LLM-patient interactions but is not representative of usual clinical practice. While further research is required before AMIE could be translated to real-world settings, the results represent a milestone towards conversational diagnostic AI. View details
    Differences between Patient and Clinician Submitted Images: Implications for Virtual Care of Skin Conditions
    Rajeev Rikhye
    Grace Eunhae Hong
    Margaret Ann Smith
    Aaron Loh
    Vijaytha Muralidharan
    Doris Wong
    Michelle Phung
    Nicolas Betancourt
    Bradley Fong
    Rachna Sahasrabudhe
    Khoban Nasim
    Alec Eschholz
    Kat Chou
    Peggy Bui
    Justin Ko
    Steven Lin
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health(2024)
    Preview abstract Objective: To understand and highlight the differences in clinical, demographic, and image quality characteristics between patient-taken (PAT) and clinic-taken (CLIN) photographs of skin conditions. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study applied logistic regression to data from 2500 deidentified cases in Stanford Health Care’s eConsult system, from November 2015 to January 2021. Cases with undiagnosable or multiple conditions or cases with both patient and clinician image sources were excluded, leaving 628 PAT cases and 1719 CLIN cases. Demographic characteristic factors, such as age and sex were self-reported, whereas anatomic location, estimated skin type, clinical signs and symptoms, condition duration, and condition frequency were summarized from patient health records. Image quality variables such as blur, lighting issues and whether the image contained skin, hair, or nails were estimated through a deep learning model. Results: Factors that were positively associated with CLIN photographs, post-2020 were as follows: age 60 years or older, darker skin types (eFST V/VI), and presence of skin growths. By contrast, factors that were positively associated with PAT photographs include conditions appearing intermittently, cases with blurry photographs, photographs with substantial nonskin (or nail/hair) regions and cases with more than 3 photographs. Within the PAT cohort, older age was associated with blurry photographs. Conclusion: There are various demographic, clinical, and image quality characteristic differences between PAT and CLIN photographs of skin concerns. The demographic characteristic differences present important considerations for improving digital literacy or access, whereas the image quality differences point to the need for improved patient education and better image capture workflows, particularly among elderly patients. View details
    Preview abstract Background Health datasets from clinical sources do not reflect the breadth and diversity of disease in the real world, impacting research, medical education and artificial intelligence (AI) tool development. Dermatology is a suitable area to develop and test a new and scalable method to create representative health datasets. Methods We used Google Search advertisements to solicit contributions of images of dermatology conditions, demographic and symptom information from internet users in the United States (US) over 265 days starting March 2023. With informed contributor consent, we described and released this dataset containing 10,106 images from 5058 contributions, with dermatologist labels as well as Fitzpatrick Skin Type and Monk Skin Tone labels for the images. Results We received 22 ± 14 submissions/day over 265 days. Female contributors (66.04%) and younger individuals (52.3% < age 40) had a higher representation in the dataset compared to the US population, and 36.6% of contributors had a non-White racial or ethnic identity. Over 97.5% of contributions were genuine images of skin conditions. Image quality had no impact on dermatologist confidence in assigning a differential diagnosis. The dataset consists largely of short duration (54% with onset < 7 days ago) allergic, infectious, and inflammatory conditions. Fitzpatrick skin type distribution is well-balanced, considering the geographical origin of the dataset and the absence of enrichment for population groups or skin tones. Interpretation Search ads are effective at crowdsourcing images of health conditions. The SCIN dataset bridges important gaps in the availability of representative images of common skin conditions. View details
    Conversational AI in health: Design considerations from a Wizard-of-Oz dermatology case study with users, clinicians and a medical LLM
    Brenna Li
    Amy Wang
    Patricia Strachan
    Julie Anne Seguin
    Sami Lachgar
    Karyn Schroeder
    Renee Wong
    Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 10
    Preview abstract Although skin concerns are common, access to specialist care is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tools to support medical decisions may provide patients with feedback on their concerns while also helping ensure the most urgent cases are routed to dermatologists. Although AI-based conversational agents have been explored recently, how they are perceived by patients and clinicians is not well understood. We conducted a Wizard-of-Oz study involving 18 participants with real skin concerns. Participants were randomly assigned to interact with either a clinician agent (portrayed by a dermatologist) or an LLM agent (supervised by a dermatologist) via synchronous multimodal chat. In both conditions, participants found the conversation to be helpful in understanding their medical situation and alleviate their concerns. Through qualitative coding of the conversation transcripts, we provide insight on the importance of empathy and effective information-seeking. We conclude with design considerations for future AI-based conversational agents in healthcare settings. View details
    Preview abstract Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are responsible for a large proportion of premature deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Early CVD detection and intervention is critical in these populations, yet many existing CVD risk scores require a physical examination or lab measurements, which can be challenging in such health systems due to limited accessibility. We investigated the potential to use photoplethysmography (PPG), a sensing technology available on most smartphones that can potentially enable large-scale screening at low cost, for CVD risk prediction. We developed a deep learning PPG-based CVD risk score (DLS) to predict the probability of having major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death) within ten years, given only age, sex, smoking status and PPG as predictors. We compare the DLS with the office-based refit-WHO score, which adopts the shared predictors from WHO and Globorisk scores (age, sex, smoking status, height, weight and systolic blood pressure) but refitted on the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort. All models were trained on a development dataset (141,509 participants) and evaluated on a geographically separate test (54,856 participants) dataset, both from UKB. DLS’s C-statistic (71.1%, 95% CI 69.9–72.4) is non-inferior to office-based refit-WHO score (70.9%, 95% CI 69.7–72.2; non-inferiority margin of 2.5%, p<0.01) in the test dataset. The calibration of the DLS is satisfactory, with a 1.8% mean absolute calibration error. Adding DLS features to the office-based score increases the C-statistic by 1.0% (95% CI 0.6–1.4). DLS predicts ten-year MACE risk comparable with the office-based refit-WHO score. Interpretability analyses suggest that the DLS-extracted features are related to PPG waveform morphology and are independent of heart rate. Our study provides a proof-of-concept and suggests the potential of a PPG-based approach strategies for community-based primary prevention in resource-limited regions. View details
    Preview abstract Large language models (LLMs) hold immense promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. In this work, we present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and then conduct an empirical case study with Med-PaLM 2, resulting in the largest human evaluation study in this area to date. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven newly-released datasets comprising both manually-curated and LLM-generated questions enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of possible biases in Med-PaLM 2 answers to adversarial queries. Through our empirical study, we find that the use of a collection of datasets curated through a variety of methodologies, coupled with a thorough evaluation protocol that leverages multiple assessment rubric designs and diverse rater groups, surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. We emphasize that while our framework can identify specific forms of bias, it is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes. We hope the broader community leverages and builds on these tools and methods towards realizing a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare for all. View details