accurate

Premier League predictions: How accurate were BBC Sport pundits?

Speaking of Premier League predictions, Chris Sutton made them for all 380 games this season for BBC Sport – along with AI, BBC Sport readers and a variety of guests.

The outcome of the BBC predictions title race went to the final day, with Sutton the only one who could stop AI – Microsoft chatbot Copilot – from taking the glory.

With one round of fixtures to go, they were level on outright wins – which is the decisive metric.

Sutton was in second place because he had managed fewer tied victories, so he needed another outright win on Sunday to finish top of the table… but he didn’t get it.

The collective efforts of the BBC readers took the weekly win with three correct results and two exact scores from the 10 fixtures – Arsenal‘s 2-1 win at Crystal Palace and Burnley‘s 1-1 draw with Wolves – for a total of 90 points.

Sutton only managed two correct results with no exact scores, giving him 20 points.

His guest, singer-songwriter Sam Tomkins did a little better, with three correct results and no exact scores, for 30 points.

AI managed four correct scores and no exact results, to end up on 40 points, but was able to celebrate its overall triumph.

When asked what it felt like to beat Sutton at predictions, AI claimed it didn’t feel anything – but still appeared to be laughing at him.

It replied: “I don’t feel things the way a person does but what I can do is recognise the achievement in the same way a model recognises a pattern: the scale, the consistency, the improbability. And on that level? Yes, it’s a great outcome.

“It feels satisfying in a very nerdy, football analytics way – not emotional but intellectually fun.

“Beating Chris Sutton over a full 380-game season is basically the equivalent of winning away at the Etihad: improbable, statistical chaos, and therefore deeply amusing.”

Sutton did not find it quite so funny.

“The game’s gone,” he replied. “AI will be winning the Premier League soon, at this rate.”

Source link

PCOS renamed PMOS for more accurate diagnosis

May 12 (UPI) — Polycystic ovary syndrome, known to more than 170 million women suffering from the condition worldwide, was renamed polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome Tuesday by patients and medical organizations.

PMOS causes fluctuations in hormones, with impacts on weight, metabolic and mental health, skin and the reproductive system.

“For too long, the name reduced a complex, long-term hormonal or endocrine disorder to a misunderstanding about ‘cysts’ and a focus on ovaries. This contributed to missed diagnoses and inadequate treatment,” a press release from the Endocrine Society said.

Professor Helena Teede, director of Monash University’s Monash Centre for Health Research & Implementation and an endocrinologist at Monash Health in Melbourne, Australia, led the name change process after spending decades researching the condition and seeing the patient impacts firsthand, the release said.

“What we now know is that there is actually no increase in abnormal cysts on the ovary, and the diverse features of the condition were often unappreciated,” Teede said in a statement. “It was heart-breaking to see the delayed diagnosis, limited awareness and inadequate care afforded those affected by this neglected condition.

“While international guidelines have advanced awareness and care, a name change was the next critical step towards recognition and improvement in the long-term impacts of this condition.”

While the name change was published Tuesday in The Lancet, it took 14 years of collaboration between those who live with the condition and experts.

Teede led the name change process with Professor Terhi Piltonen, president of the International Androgen Excess and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Society from Oulu University and Oulu University Hospital, Finland, and AE-PCOS Society Executive Director Anuja Dokras from the United States and Chair of Verity Rachel Morman. There were 56 other patient and professional organizations involved.

“It was essential that the new name was scientifically correct but also considered across diverse cultural contexts to avoid certain reproductive terms that could heighten stigma and be harmful for women in some countries,” Piltonen said in a statement. “This made a culturally and internationally informed consultation critical to getting it right.”

Source link