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