• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Uhhh, they trained their AI on only 18 women with diabetes? This can’t be done correctly.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s bullshit. It’s the typical mixture of overly ambitious scientists and clickbait driven media.

      Remember the 200 cures for cancer last year?

    • chepox@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Sample size is relevant as a proportion of the difference you are looking for.

      For example:

      Sample A: 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.2, 1.1

      Sample B: 345.3, 323.4, 322.3, 355.2

      Determining a statistical difference between these two groups where a meaningful difference is 20%, does not require more samples. The chance of error on making a claim that A is less than B will be quite low.

      Not saying that N=18 in this case is sufficient, just stating that the number alone does not give you enough information to determine whether a claim has weight to it or not.

  • fred@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Poorly phrased in the article if I understand correctly. It means it gave a correct positive diagnosis in patients who had already been diagnosed, with those percentages.