[gwern]

> Why don't they link to the paper?

I see nothing in 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]

Given the amount of data available, it is not unreasonable to expect n>1000

[gwern]

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.