Fair question. The model we comment on both suffer from the problem described in the article but also a more severe problem:

The developers sampled obvious cases og hypotension and nonhypotension, and trained the model to distinguish those. And also validated it on data that was similarly dichotomous. In reality the outcome is often between these two scenarios.

But worse, they also introduce a more severe problem where as range of an important predictor is only available in the hypotension outcome.

Thanks for explaining!

I quit research forever after I was ignored pointing out a similar problem in our predictive model.

I can only imagine the frustration. Just getting this through peer-review took half a year, but at least there was the academic currency of a publication to motivate me.

Sorry for asking, but how is it not?

Do you agree that it’s ok to pose a question whenever you don’t understand?

Ironically, that's exactly what NovemberWhiskey is doing here :)

I’m not sure where you got this form of communication where you respond to everything with a question, and I assume you mean well, but it comes across as patronizing and de-humanizing to try to follow these “rules to winning arguments passively”, or whatever it is.

Indeed, the confusion here is (I think) because your first comment

> Sorry for asking, but how is this relevant to the article?

Sounds accusatory.

Please don’t respond to this with a question.

The basic idea of that kind of question is to find the minimal place of agreement. And then understand where one deviates.

Going back the path of arguments to common ground if you will. It works quite well in my experience if you’re interested in genuine discussion.

PS: how something “sounds” is really difficult to say in a written medium. It might say more about the reader than the writer.

> PS: how something “sounds” is really difficult to say in a written medium. It might say more about the reader than the writer.

No, it’s not difficult. And not it’s not the reader. When multiple readers all agree about the same interpretation of the writer. It might have been unintentional on the part of the writer, but that doesn’t make it “difficult” Or the readers fault.

I think what youre trying to encourage is open ended discussion? It's my opinion that this only tends to work IRL or in online mediums with more moderation e.g. wikipedia, stackoverflow.

Random open ended discussion can be good, but I bet it's wise to assume tht most random musings arent really as interesting as you might think.

In any case thanks for clarifying.