战德臣数据库ppt
We all know that there’s a lot of money in health, because humans have frail, sensitive bodies which are prone to disease and ageing — all of us need to access healthcare at various stages all through our lives.
我们都知道，健康方面有很多钱，因为人类的身体脆弱且易患疾病和衰老，所以我们所有人都需要在生命的各个阶段获得医疗保健。
But what kind of world are we walking into when Google suddenly becomes your gateway to healthcare? Can a large tech company replace a hospital or doctors office?
但是，当Google突然成为您通往医疗保健的门户时，我们将进入一个什么样的世界？ 大型科技公司可以代替医院或医生办公室吗？
Should Google be your doctor?
Should Google be your doctor?
Google, like others, has very recently made significant moves to cement its place in the so-called ‘healthcare market’. They acquired Fitbit, which in turn gave them access to the health data of over 28 million users — a move which is at once clever and terrifying.
谷歌与其他谷歌一样，最近也采取了重大举措，以巩固其在所谓的“医疗保健市场”中的地位。 他们收购了Fitbit ，这反过来又使他们获得了超过2800万用户的健康数据，这一举动立刻是聪明而可怕的。
Don’t let Fitbit distract you from what else Google are working on: Project Nightingale sees them getting into bed with Ascension, who are the biggest healthcare company in the USA. Many are confused by this project codename but I would hazard that’s named for the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale.
不要让Fitbit分散您对Google正在进行的其他工作的注意力： Nightingale项目看到他们与美国最大的医疗保健公司Ascension坐下来。 许多人对该项目代号感到困惑，但是我会以现代护理的创始人佛罗伦萨·南丁格尔(Florence Nightingale)的名字命名。
Why are they working with Ascension?
他们为什么与Ascension合作？
To give them Cloud infrastructure, and other useful Google tools that healthcare could probably do with. 为他们提供云基础架构以及医疗保健可能会使用的其他有用的Google工具。 To receive the 50 million patient records — ding ding ding, that’s the important part. 接收5000万患者的病历-叮叮叮，那是重要的部分。 To eventually develop more efficient workflows for diagnosis and treatment. 最终开发出更有效的诊断和治疗工作流程。Has this partnership upset anyone yet?
这种伙伴关系有没有让任何人难过？
The two companies are already under investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that they are complying with HIPPA — the law that protects confidential medical information. 两家公司已经接受美国卫生与公共服务部的调查，以确保它们遵守HIPPA(保护机密医疗信息的法律)。 As is classic with this sort of thing, neither patients nor doctors were notified about this 👏 就像这种事情的经典做法一样，患者和医生都没有被告知此事notified🏥💸 How Google want to commodify this health data: by making healthcare search tools, and by making an AI that could suggest (recommend? Predict?) treatments. As usual this leaves us in murky waters.
Google Google如何将这些健康数据商品化：通过制作医疗保健搜索工具，以及制作可以建议(推荐？ 预测？ )治疗方法的AI。 像往常一样，这使我们陷入阴暗的水域。
This is how patient search tools might look — much like the Google Search that we know 这就是患者搜索工具的外观-非常类似于我们所知道的Google搜索Even if Google do manage to fabricate a sprawling utopia of healthcare products, it would mean entrusting them with the most valuable and sensitive data with have about ourselves. Remember their track record:
即使Google设法制造了庞大的医疗保健产品乌托邦，这也意味着将他们自己的财产托付给他们最有价值和最敏感的数据。 记住他们的往绩：
In 2016, DeepMind (then a subsidiary of Google) accessed 1.6 million NHS records to help them develop an app called Streams. This app would use AI to monitor patients with kidney disease, and notify the right clinician if their condition worsens.
2016年，DeepMind(当时是Google的子公司)访问了160万张NHS记录，以帮助他们开发名为Streams的应用程序。 该应用程序将使用AI监视患有肾脏疾病的患者，并在病情恶化时通知合适的临床医生。
The scope of the type of data that was collected was actually much wider than that — it included things like whether or not patients were HIV positive, information on drug overdoses, and other things that have no bearing on the function of Streams. 实际上，所收集的数据类型的范围远不止于此，它包括诸如患者是否为HIV阳性，有关药物过量的信息以及其他与Streams功能无关的事情。Google absorbed DeepMind Health earlier this year. Even though DeepMind made a promise that this would not happen…
Google在今年初吸收了DeepMind Health 。 即使DeepMind 承诺不会发生这种情况…
The patients were notified about this after the fact, meaning they were unable to give consent for their data to be used in this way. 事后将有关情况告知患者，这意味着他们无法同意以这种方式使用其数据。Bonus point: Google did attempt some level of accountability when they set up an external ethics board to oversee their AI platform. But it was dissolved a week later.
优点：Google在建立外部道德委员会来监督其AI平台时确实尝试了某种程度的问责制。 但是一周后它就解散了 。
You almost can’t blame DeepMind for doing this — what they wanted to achieve was only possible with the power and resources that big tech company like Google has. This is precisely the issue when you have the universe of user data centralised to just a handful of companies.
您几乎不能怪DeepMind这样做-他们想要实现的目标只有借助像Google这样的大型科技公司的力量和资源才能实现。 当您将用户数据范围集中到少数公司时，这正是问题所在。
“One of the reasons for joining forces with Google in 2014 was the opportunity to use Google’s scale and experience in building billion-user products to bring our breakthroughs more rapidly to the wider world.” Demis Hassabis, DeepMind.
“ 2014年与Google合作的原因之一是有机会利用Google的规模和经验来构建数十亿用户的产品，从而将我们的突破更快地带到更广阔的世界。” Demis Hassabis，DeepMind。
A company with all the tools and resources you need to make any organisation run like a well-oiled machine — such as Google — could help bring healthcare into the future. Or just… present day. In theory, using AI to diagnose and treat patients is a great idea. There would be less human error and bias.
如果一家公司拥有您所需的所有工具和资源，可以使任何组织像运转良好的机器(例如Google)一样运转，则可以帮助将医疗保健带入未来。 或者只是……今天。 从理论上讲，使用AI诊断和治疗患者是一个好主意。 人为错误和偏见将减少。
Imagine the potential impact of machine error as it automates important decisions a hundred times faster than a human medical professional.
Imagine the potential impact of machine error as it automates important decisions a hundred times faster than a human medical professional.
In reality the prospect of AI supporting healthcare in any way is galling at best. Human error is one thing, but imagine the potential impact of machine error as it automates important decisions a hundred times faster than a human medical professional. This is issue is explored in depth in Automating Inequality by Virginia Eubanks. Here she talks about a ‘modernised’ health benefits system in the US state of Indiana:
实际上，以任何方式支持医疗保健的AI的前景都是光明的。 人为错误是一回事，但可以想象一下机器错误对潜在的影响，因为它使重要的决策自动化的速度比人类医疗专业人员快一百倍。 弗吉尼亚·尤班克斯 ( Virginia Eubanks)在“ 自动实现不平等”中对此问题进行了深入探讨。 在这里，她谈到了美国印第安纳州的“现代化”医疗福利制度：
“Each month the number of verification documents that vanished — were not attached properly to digital case files in a process called ‘indexing’ — rose exponentially. […] By February 2009, nearly 283,000 documents had disappeared, an increase of 2,473 percent” Virgina Eubanks, Automating Inequality
“每个月消失的验证文件(在称为“索引”的过程中未正确附加到数字案件文件中)的数量呈指数增长。 […]到2009年2月，将近283,000份文件消失了，增长了2,473％。” Virgina Eubanks，自动化不平等
At the end of the day, it’s structures like this that give us less autonomy and control over the most important data we have. And it’s not just Google: Amazon, Facebook and Apple (with it’s health app in tandem with Apple Watch) are also making strides in healthcare.
归根结底，正是这种结构使我们减少了对我们拥有的最重要数据的自治和控制。 不仅仅是Google： Amazon ， Facebook和Apple (与Apple Watch配合使用的健康应用程序)也在医疗保健方面取得了长足进步。
Anouk Ruhaak, a data governance expert and Mozilla fellow, shines a ray of hope on all this in this recent piece, suggesting that data trusts could be a viable solution for such a problem.
数据治理专家， Mozilla研究员 Anouk Ruhaak 在最近的这篇文章中对所有这些都寄予了希望，表明数据信任可能是解决此问题的可行解决方案。
“Trading highly sensitive data for the uncertain promise of better healthcare is a Faustian bargain and one we should not have to make. There is no reason why we cannot make the health benefits of our data available to society at large, without surrendering control over our privacy in the process.” Anouk Ruhaak, Mozilla.
“为了获得更好的医疗保健的不确定前景而交易高度敏感的数据是浮士德式的讨价还价交易，我们不应该这样做。 如果没有在此过程中放弃对我们隐私的控制，我们就没有理由不能使我们的数据对健康有益。 Anouk Ruhaak，Mozilla。
👉 In conclusion: Google (and arguably, anyone else) should not be profiting off of your health, and it’s clear that we need radical change over how health data is governed. So after reading this ask yourself: should Google be your doctor?
👉 结论： Google(以及可以说是其他任何人)不应从您的健康中获利，而且很明显，我们需要对如何管理健康数据进行根本性的改变。 因此，在阅读本文后，请问自己：Google应该成为您的医生吗？
翻译自: https://medium.com/metomic-incognito/the-fight-for-our-health-data-ea137be9eb5a
战德臣数据库ppt
相关资源：数据库课件