
In our eyes, Google’s software sees heart attack risk - helloworld
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/02/19/google-used-artificial-intelligence-to-predict-heart-attacks-with-the-human-eye
======
carbocation
As my PI notes, a lot of the success here can be explained by the model's
excellent ability to determine age from the images of the retina.
[https://twitter.com/skathire/status/965661596503638016](https://twitter.com/skathire/status/965661596503638016)

This is quite good age detection - other efforts that I've seen (from face
images, rather than retina images) are +/\- 5 years, whereas this paper gets
age to within +/\- 3 years or so.

The fact that the model automatically detects anatomical features that humans
recognize as being important is promising for a variety of applications, I
think.

------
amelius
I suspect that it's mostly the amount of data that allows this, and that the
software is just using run-off-the-mill statistics/ML. The title should
reflect that. It's not the software, it's the data.

------
hemapani
Remember what happened they tried to predict the flu.
[https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-
google-...](https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-flu-
trends/)

In [https://www.kaggle.com/c/diabetic-retinopathy-
detection](https://www.kaggle.com/c/diabetic-retinopathy-detection) actually
ML algo did better than humans. Yet it will take time for apply these widely.

~~~
candiodari
Those are two entirely unrelated methods. One worked, one failed. One is a
sort of "wisdom of the crowd" algorithm (as in human crowds) and it failed
after initially showing promise (essentially it worked until someone told the
crowd), one is machine learning from images.

------
davidw
Pretty cool to see those photos. I used to work at a company that makes fundus
cameras that take those kinds of pictures.

------
logronoide
Any optician can do exactly the same thing during a simple check of your eyes.
In this case I can’t see the benefit of this type of screening. The tool used
by the optician is just a cheap lantern, but only the tool needed by the
computer is way more expensive.

~~~
ceejayoz
I'd suspect the tools will eventually be dramatically cheaper than a trained
optician. Put it in a pharmacy, grocery store, or other central location and
people could screen weekly instead of once every couple years (assuming they
even _see_ an optician).

~~~
logronoide
As I have explained before, in Spain an optician does not charge anything for
it because it’s ridiculously simple and it’s a small percentage of the effort
that an optician needs to do for a prescription.

This test is different of a blood test for example. You don’t need to control
the evolution weekly, or even monthly.

This is one of the most simple screening process. Because it’s easy to train
the model with tons of images already made by opticians and optometrists. It
does not have any value, it’s too simple.

My brother is an optician and has a huge database with retina images. If even
me with limited knowledge of ML and my brother as field expert could train a
model to detect blood pressure problems.

Too simple, no value.

~~~
amingilani
Simple? Yes but there's absolutely value in this. In Pakistan I've never had
an opthalmologist comment on my retina before, despite wearing glasses since I
was a child.

Not everyone has an opthalmologist brother, or is a machine learning engineer.
You should have used this to your advantage to make something like this.

How many startups make simple applications? Uber is a simple marketplace, as
is Airbnb, and PayPal is a glorified accounting database. Please don't
downplay the impact of a product because of its simplicity.

~~~
logronoide
AI and ML should take mankind to a new level. This article describes something
that opticians and optometrist have been doing for a long time with a more
classic computing algorithmic approach.

~~~
elarahn
What's wrong with simple; if simple works ?

------
mping
Honest question: why is that an alternative medicine eg. Iridology is seen as
quackery but a computer predicting heart attack risk is not? I know the
science behind AI but from a patient point of view, they both analyze the eye.

------
okigan
>Google’s algorithms were able to predict whether someone had high blood
pressure or was at risk of a heart attack or stroke

How is that different from just measuring the blood pressure (with really
inexpensive device)?

------
matte_black
What do you do after you discover you are at risk? Get your affairs in order?

~~~
tinymollusk
It gives a high-risk group the ability to notify their friends and family and
practice what to do in event of a heart attack. My mom frequently stays with
me, but outside of "call 911" I don't really know what to do in teh event of a
heart attack. Time lost is lives lost, so better preparation could quite
literally save lives.

~~~
sjg007
You could carry a defibrillator with you.

------
leeoniya
i think it'll be quite some time until ML and CV can do the breadth of
diagnostics for all possible things.

my wife is an optometrist. just from looking at retinas, she finds brain
tumors among other scary systemic problems. even if you have perfect vision,
go in for an exam, it can literally save your life.

------
bromuro
> opening a new opportunity for artificial intelligence in the vast and
> lucrative global health industry.

well done! google will join the lucrative industry of the people’s health. the
rich will survive, the other will build the machine to make them survive.

------
sjg007
Anybody have the link or how can I test myself?

