"Why no one is questioning the Australian studies but point a finger to US ones"
I suspect it will come down to the fact that we trained our algorithm with Australian adjudicators and US adjudication was different. Therefore the algorithm wasn't as good at predicting US diagnoses as it would have been at predicting Australian ones.
And on the face of it, the answer isn't going to be as simple as re-training with the current data and trying another trial during the winter after this one. It's pretty clear that for some conditions clinical diagnosis just isn't as predictable in the US as it is in Australia, for reasons referred to above. Remember we centralised adjudication for this trial for exactly this reason; to eliminate variability between teams. Now it's obvious that there is a lot of variability between adjudicators on the same team.
It comes down to this:
You can only train an algorithm to make accurate classifications if the classifier is predictable.
This is about my last post here. On the face of it ResappDx can no longer be regarded as a paradigm-shifting, revolutionary development. Instead it's starting to look like a long, hard, slow grind to bring this to market and transition to revenue. I suspect we are two years or more from where we thought we would be by Christmas this year.
Hang in there all of you - optimists and opportunists alike - I believe Resapp is going to need your support through the years and capital raisings to come.
