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
Closing the AI generalisation gap by adjusting for dermatology condition distribution differences across clinical settings
Rajeev Rikhye
Aaron Loh
Grace Hong
Margaret Ann Smith
Vijaytha Muralidharan
Doris Wong
Michelle Phung
Nicolas Betancourt
Bradley Fong
Rachna Sahasrabudhe
Khoban Nasim
Alec Eschholz
Basil Mustafa
Jan Freyberg
Terry Spitz
Kat Chou
Peggy Bui
Justin Ko
Steven Lin
The Lancet eBioMedicine (2025)
Preview abstract
Background: Generalisation of artificial intelligence (AI) models to a new setting is challenging. In this study, we seek to understand the robustness of a dermatology (AI) model and whether it generalises from telemedicine cases to a new setting including both patient-submitted photographs (“PAT”) and clinician-taken photographs in-clinic (“CLIN”).
Methods: A retrospective cohort study involving 2500 cases previously unseen by the AI model, including both PAT and CLIN cases, from 22 clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area, spanning November 2015 to January 2021. The primary outcome measure for the AI model and dermatologists was the top-3 accuracy, defined as whether their top 3 differential diagnoses contained the top reference diagnosis from a panel of dermatologists per case.
Findings: The AI performed similarly between PAT and CLIN images (74% top-3 accuracy in CLIN vs. 71% in PAT), however, dermatologists were more accurate in PAT images (79% in CLIN vs. 87% in PAT). We demonstrate that demographic factors were not associated with AI or dermatologist errors; instead several categories of conditions were associated with AI model errors (p < 0.05). Resampling CLIN and PAT to match skin condition distributions to the AI development dataset reduced the observed differences (AI: 84% CLIN vs. 79% PAT; dermatologists: 77% CLIN vs. 89% PAT). We demonstrate a series of steps to close the generalisation gap, requiring progressively more information about the new dataset, ranging from the condition distribution to additional training data for rarer conditions. When using additional training data and testing on the dataset without resampling to match AI development, we observed comparable performance from end-to-end AI model fine tuning (85% in CLIN vs. 83% in PAT) vs. fine tuning solely the classification layer on top of a frozen embedding model (86% in CLIN vs. 84% in PAT).
Interpretation: AI algorithms can be efficiently adapted to new settings without additional training data by recalibrating the existing model, or with targeted data acquisition for rarer conditions and retraining just the final layer.
View details
Performance of a Deep Learning Diabetic Retinopathy Algorithm in India
Arthur Brant
Xiang Yin
Lu Yang
Jay Nayar
Divleen Jeji
Sunny Virmani
Anchintha Meenu
Naresh Babu Kannan
Florence Thng
Lily Peng
Ramasamy Kim
JAMA Network Open (2025)
Preview abstract
Importance: While prospective studies have investigated the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME), to date, little published data exist on the clinical performance of these algorithms.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of an automated retinal disease assessment (ARDA) algorithm in the postdeployment setting at Aravind Eye Hospital in India.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis involved an approximate 1% sample of fundus photographs from patients screened using ARDA. Images were graded via adjudication by US ophthalmologists for DR and DME, and ARDA’s output was compared against the adjudicated grades at 45 sites in Southern India. Patients were randomly selected between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2023.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary analyses were the sensitivity and specificity of ARDA for severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR). Secondary analyses focused on sensitivity and specificity for sight-threatening DR (STDR) (DME or severe NPDR or PDR).
Results: Among the 4537 patients with 4537 images with adjudicated grades, mean (SD) age was 55.2 (11.9) years and 2272 (50.1%) were male. Among the 3941 patients with gradable photographs, 683 (17.3%) had any DR, 146 (3.7%) had severe NPDR or PDR, 109 (2.8%) had PDR, and 398 (10.1%) had STDR. ARDA’s sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR or PDR were 97.0% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.2%) and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.7%-97.0%), respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 50.7% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.9%. The clinically important miss rate for severe NPDR or PDR was 0% (eg, some patients with severe NPDR or PDR were interpreted as having moderate DR and referred to clinic). ARDA’s sensitivity for STDR was 95.9% (95% CI, 93.0%-97.4%) and specificity was 94.9% (95% CI, 94.1%-95.7%); PPV and NPV were 67.9% and 99.5%, respectively.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study investigating the clinical performance of ARDA, sensitivity and specificity for severe NPDR and PDR exceeded 96% and caught 100% of patients with severe NPDR and PDR for ophthalmology referral. This preliminary large-scale postmarketing report of the performance of ARDA after screening 600 000 patients in India underscores the importance of monitoring and publication an algorithm's clinical performance, consistent with recommendations by regulatory bodies.
View details
Triaging mammography with artificial intelligence: an implementation study
Sarah M. Friedewald
Sunny Jansen
Fereshteh Mahvar
Timo Kohlberger
David V. Schacht
Sonya Bhole
Dipti Gupta
Scott Mayer McKinney
Stacey Caron
David Melnick
Mozziyar Etemadi
Samantha Winter
Alejandra Maciel
Luca Speroni
Martha Sevenich
Arnav Agharwal
Rubin Zhang
Gavin Duggan
Shiro Kadowaki
Atilla Kiraly
Jie Yang
Basil Mustafa
Krish Eswaran
Shravya Shetty
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2025)
Preview abstract
Purpose
Many breast centers are unable to provide immediate results at the time of screening mammography which results in delayed patient care. Implementing artificial intelligence (AI) could identify patients who may have breast cancer and accelerate the time to diagnostic imaging and biopsy diagnosis.
Methods
In this prospective randomized, unblinded, controlled implementation study we enrolled 1000 screening participants between March 2021 and May 2022. The experimental group used an AI system to prioritize a subset of cases for same-visit radiologist evaluation, and same-visit diagnostic workup if necessary. The control group followed the standard of care. The primary operational endpoints were time to additional imaging (TA) and time to biopsy diagnosis (TB).
Results
The final cohort included 463 experimental and 392 control participants. The one-sided Mann-Whitney U test was employed for analysis of TA and TB. In the control group, the TA was 25.6 days [95% CI 22.0–29.9] and TB was 55.9 days [95% CI 45.5–69.6]. In comparison, the experimental group's mean TA was reduced by 25% (6.4 fewer days [one-sided 95% CI > 0.3], p<0.001) and mean TB was reduced by 30% (16.8 fewer days; 95% CI > 5.1], p=0.003). The time reduction was more pronounced for AI-prioritized participants in the experimental group. All participants eventually diagnosed with breast cancer were prioritized by the AI.
Conclusions
Implementing AI prioritization can accelerate care timelines for patients requiring additional workup, while maintaining the efficiency of delayed interpretation for most participants. Reducing diagnostic delays could contribute to improved patient adherence, decreased anxiety and addressing disparities in access to timely care.
View details
Towards Generalist Biomedical AI
Danny Driess
Andrew Carroll
Chuck Lau
Ryutaro Tanno
Ira Ktena
Basil Mustafa
Aakanksha Chowdhery
Simon Kornblith
Philip Mansfield
Sushant Prakash
Renee Wong
Sunny Virmani
Sara Mahdavi
Bradley Green
Ewa Dominowska
Joelle Barral
Karan Singhal
Pete Florence
NEJM AI (2024)
Preview abstract
BACKGROUND: Medicine is inherently multimodal, requiring the simultaneous interpretation and integration of insights between many data modalities spanning text, imaging, genomics, and more. Generalist biomedical artificial intelligence systems that flexibly encode, integrate, and interpret these data might better enable impactful applications ranging from scientific discovery to care delivery.
METHODS: To catalyze development of these models, we curated MultiMedBench, a new multimodal biomedical benchmark. MultiMedBench encompasses 14 diverse tasks, such as medical question answering, mammography and dermatology image interpretation, radiology report generation and summarization, and genomic variant calling. We then introduced Med-PaLM Multimodal (Med-PaLM M), our proof of concept for a generalist biomedical AI system that flexibly encodes and interprets biomedical data including clinical language, imaging, and genomics with the same set of model weights. To further probe the capabilities and limitations of Med-PaLM M, we conducted a radiologist evaluation of model-generated (and human) chest x-ray reports.
RESULTS: We observed encouraging performance across model scales. Med-PaLM M reached performance competitive with or exceeding the state of the art on all MultiMedBench tasks, often surpassing specialist models by a wide margin. In a side-by-side ranking on 246 retrospective chest x-rays, clinicians expressed a pairwise preference for Med-PaLM Multimodal reports over those produced by radiologists in up to 40.50% of cases, suggesting potential clinical utility.
CONCLUSIONS: Although considerable work is needed to validate these models in real-world cases and understand if cross-modality generalization is possible, our results represent a milestone toward the development of generalist biomedical artificial intelligence systems.
View details
Creating an Empirical Dermatology Dataset Through Crowdsourcing With Web Search Advertisements
Abbi Ward
Jimmy Li
Julie Wang
Sriram Lakshminarasimhan
Ashley Carrick
Jay Hartford
Pradeep Kumar S
Sunny Virmani
Renee Wong
Margaret Ann Smith
Dawn Siegel
Steven Lin
Justin Ko
JAMA Network Open (2024)
Preview abstract
Importance: Health datasets from clinical sources do not reflect the breadth and diversity of disease, impacting research, medical education, and artificial intelligence tool development. Assessments of novel crowdsourcing methods to create health datasets are needed.
Objective: To evaluate if web search advertisements (ads) are effective at creating a diverse and representative dermatology image dataset.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational survey study, conducted from March to November 2023, used Google Search ads to invite internet users in the US to contribute images of dermatology conditions with demographic and symptom information to the Skin Condition Image Network (SCIN) open access dataset. Ads were displayed against dermatology-related search queries on mobile devices, inviting contributions from adults after a digital informed consent process. Contributions were filtered for image safety and measures were taken to protect privacy. Data analysis occurred January to February 2024.
Exposure: Dermatologist condition labels as well as estimated Fitzpatrick Skin Type (eFST) and estimated Monk Skin Tone (eMST) labels.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary metrics of interest were the number, quality, demographic diversity, and distribution of clinical conditions in the crowdsourced contributions. Spearman rank order correlation was used for all correlation analyses, and the χ2 test was used to analyze differences between SCIN contributor demographics and the US census.
Results: In total, 5749 submissions were received, with a median of 22 (14-30) per day. Of these, 5631 (97.9%) were genuine images of dermatological conditions. Among contributors with self-reported demographic information, female contributors (1732 of 2596 contributors [66.7%]) and younger contributors (1329 of 2556 contributors [52.0%] aged <40 years) had a higher representation in the dataset compared with the US population. Of 2614 contributors who reported race and ethnicity, 852 (32.6%) reported a racial or ethnic identity other than White. Dermatologist confidence in assigning a differential diagnosis increased with the number of self-reported demographic and skin-condition–related variables (Spearman R = 0.1537; P < .001). Of 4019 contributions reporting duration since onset, 2170 (54.0%) reported onset within less than 7 days of submission. Of the 2835 contributions that could be assigned a dermatological differential diagnosis, 2523 (89.0%) were allergic, infectious, or inflammatory conditions. eFST and eMST distributions reflected the geographical origin of the dataset.
Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this survey study suggest that search ads are effective at crowdsourcing dermatology images and could therefore be a useful method to create health datasets. The SCIN dataset bridges important gaps in the availability of images of common, short-duration skin conditions.
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
General Geospatial Inference with a Population Dynamics Foundation Model
Chaitanya Kamath
Prithul Sarker
Joydeep Paul
Yael Mayer
Sheila de Guia
Jamie McPike
Adam Boulanger
David Schottlander
Yao Xiao
Manjit Chakravarthy Manukonda
Monica Bharel
Von Nguyen
Luke Barrington
Niv Efron
Krish Eswaran
Shravya Shetty
(2024) (to appear)
Preview abstract
Supporting the health and well-being of dynamic populations around the world requires governmental agencies, organizations, and researchers to understand and reason over complex relationships between human behavior and local contexts. This support includes identifying populations at elevated risk and gauging where to target limited aid resources. Traditional approaches to these classes of problems often entail developing manually curated, task-specific features and models to represent human behavior and the natural and built environment, which can be challenging to adapt to new, or even related tasks. To address this, we introduce the Population Dynamics Foundation Model (PDFM), which aims to capture the relationships between diverse data modalities and is applicable to a broad range of geospatial tasks. We first construct a geo-indexed dataset for postal codes and counties across the United States, capturing rich aggregated information on human behavior from maps, busyness, and aggregated search trends, and environmental factors such as weather and air quality. We then model this data and the complex relationships between locations using a graph neural network, producing embeddings that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks using relatively simple models. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach by benchmarking it on 27 downstream tasks spanning three distinct domains: health indicators, socioeconomic factors, and environmental measurements. The approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on geospatial interpolation across all tasks, surpassing existing satellite and geotagged image based location encoders. In addition, it achieves state-of-the-art performance in extrapolation and super-resolution for 25 of the 27 tasks. We also show that the PDFM can be combined with a state-of-the-art forecasting foundation model, TimesFM, to predict unemployment and poverty, achieving performance that surpasses fully supervised forecasting. The full set of embeddings and sample code are publicly available for researchers. In conclusion, we have demonstrated a general purpose approach to geospatial modeling tasks critical to understanding population dynamics by leveraging a rich set of complementary globally available datasets that can be readily adapted to previously unseen machine learning tasks.
View details
Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study
Terry Spitz
Malcolm Chelliah
Heather Cole-Lewis
Tiam Jaroensri
Geoff Keeling
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
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
