Google Health all but invited the blowback when its AI developer-researchers suggested their breast-cancer model may be superior to radiologists’ eyes and generalizable across differing demographics.
That was in January. The team is still championing the implications of its work.
This month around 25 researchers from around the world dinged the Google Health study hard, laying bare its shortcomings regarding methodological transparency and scientific reproducibility.
Both papers ran in Nature. And now Team Google is back in that publication, responding to the response.
“Led by Dr. Scott McKinney, Google Health did not mince words,” as Shelly Fan, PhD, describes in a showdown synopsis running in SingularityHub. “Their general argument: ‘No doubt the commenters are motivated by protecting future patients as much as scientific principle. We share that sentiment.’”
However, under current regulatory frameworks, Fan writes, paraphrasing Google Health’s gist, “our hands are tied when it comes to open sharing.”
Many healthcare AI watchers will find Fan’s coverage helpful, as all three papers are behind Nature’s paywall. For her full take on the kerfuffle, click here.
Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.