The 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 cl

The 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