[mimd]

The reviewer's criticism didn't stop the article from being published. Sure, they didn't recommend it initially but that happens.

I'd call it somewhat mild attention to other factors from the one reviewer. The pointing out of issues in data balance, why an nn model, are also good criticism. Here's the review page if anyone wants to read it.

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...

So the question becomes, is his claim of leaving out other factors not greatly influencing and it's just a grift and/or is nature's review process a dog and pony show?