Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it does not seem to be on sci-hub (yet?) and apparently my institution doesn't want to pay for nature anymore. While I have

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it does not seem to be on sci-hub (yet?) and apparently my institution doesn't want to pay for nature anymore. While I have no doubt that imaging-based neural nets can outperform a lot of the cardiac risk scores in clinical use today (they are usually pretty rudimentary), I would be fairly cautious about this article. Let's say one of the authors has a pretty long record of making extraordinary claims backed by very little evidence; managing to impress the medical community while at the same time being regarded as an impostor in the computer science community. Of course I'm just a random stranger on the internet, so I might just be a jealous competitor ;)