3 ms·
Sorry I misinterpreted then. I thought you were dismissing it out of negativity but actually it's worse - you actually made a judgement that you knew more than
by spuz 5y ago
Sorry I misinterpreted then. I thought you were dismissing it out of negativity but actually it's worse - you actually made a judgement that you knew more than the authors of the study.
- cerved 5y agoThe only judgement I made was to not read the whole paper. I read up until the paper stated that classifying sex based on retinal pictures was unlikely to be clinically useful. At which point I lost interest. Why wasn't the ML model and clinician classifying something that actually is clinically useful? If it has no clinical significance, what's the relevance of the classification of the clinicians? How is it any more spectacular than beating a random classifier? Had these points been addressed at this point I might have continued reading