# Is there any justification for excluding core statistics in 'AI Death Predictor' Paper?

Over the last few days I have been seeing a lot of buzz and news articles about an AI death predictor that is 'highly accurate' based on a 'life story'. Due accuracy being such a poor indicator of predictive power, I tend to be highly suspicious of claims that focus on it. For example, I can write function return True which will be extremely accurate for many questions such as, "is person X on earth?" I realize that most mainstream media articles are not going to get into more meaningful statistics so that doesn't mean it's necessarily bogus so I decided to look into the specifics of the claim more closely. I was able to access the article here from my home computer (but not through my work VPN.)

I was a little underwhelmed by what I found. First off, I cannot find a confusion matrix or values that could be used to build one. Secondly, I cannot find any reference to the "78% correctness" mentioned in some of the articles I have seen. I also don't see anything like the claims that this will predict "when you'll die" given your life story. It seems clear that many of the news articles misrepresent the actual study, but the paper itself has some puzzling aspects.

The actual prediction was whether a person would survive for the 4 years after 2016 based on a number of factors. However, I can't find the values for: true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), or false negatives (FN). All I can find is the mean-corrected Matthew's correlation coefficient (C-MCC) which is given as 0.41 which ranges from -1 to 1 where a value of 1 is completely correct, 0 is random chance, and values below 0 are worse than random.

Assuming I haven't just missed something (I searched visually and on key terms,) this seems a little strange. The MCC is calculated from these values but you cannot compute those inputs if all you have is the MCC value. The closest it seems to get is a (pretty confusing, IMO) plot which seems to show a lot of incorrect predictions and kind of looks to me like it mostly predicts that older people are more likely to die.

Question: Is it suspect to exclude the values that were used to calculate the MCC? This seems pretty basic to me. At the very least I would expect a paper of this type to provide precision and recall.

• Too many questions in the same post. It seems that your main concern boils down to the definition of MCC and it relation to precision, recall, true positives, etc. If your questions are just subquestions of a main question, can you please put your main specific question in the title? Thanks.
– nbro
Jan 2 at 13:11
• "main concern boils down to the definition of MCC and it relation to precision, recall, true positives, etc" I understand how those relate. Anyone can look that up. I'm trying to understand why the core statistics seem to be obfuscated in the paper. Jan 2 at 16:05