> I think this more an example how black-box models are basically useless for clinical research. A result different from the null hypothesis is useles. Let us

> I think this more an example how black-box models are basically useless for clinical research. A result different from the null hypothesis is useles. Let us say the machine could not succeed greater than chance, it would be a case of cosmic bad luck in that case, that all social and biological factors cancel each other out. Thus, in the case of the null hypothesis being confirmed by this, one may conclude that in all likelihood retinal patterns have no sexual divergence. But, machines very rarely find such a null hypothesis in such cases, and that might be in no small part because of all the extra factors that such models latch on to. I for one would be more interested in an obvious nonce test to see if the machine can find something: see if the a.i. can find a retinal difference between, say, the poor and the rich. If it can with high accuracy what retinae are poor, and what are rich, we might have a somewhat interesting situation.