7 ms·

Why don't they link to the paper? This article is really crappy and doesn't explain what they did at all. For example, why diddn't they mention probabilist netw

Why don't they link to the paper? This article is really crappy and doesn't explain what they did at all. For example, why diddn't they mention probabilist networks, which dominates this field. And I doubt that 240 data points is enough to write a paper.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gwern 12y ago
> Why don't they link to the paper? I see nothing in http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=frenkel+Arutyunyan+kidney+transplant+decision+tree&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C9 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=frenkel+Arutyunyan+kidne... and given the context, it was likely buried in an obscure Russian journal & so of no value to English readers anyway. > This article is really crappy and doesn't explain what they did at all. Seems like a good explanation to me. > For example, why diddn't they mention probabilist networks, which dominates this field. Because those weren't used much back then. > And I doubt that 240 data points is enough to write a paper. Sure it is. Why wouldn't n=240 work?
- Chronic28 12y ago
  Given the amount of data available, it is not unreasonable to expect n>1000
  - gwern 12y ago
    They obviously did not think that reasonable, their results seem to be fine, and I still don't see what the problem is with n=240.