Story

I fully agree with the overal message of the article, pointing out that just having a lot of data does not automatically prevent sampling errors/sampling bias and/or other fallacies.

That being said, I think they were downplaying what Target seems to have achieved a bit too much. Of course the system is bound to produce some false positives, but given the criteria described it does seem reasonable that they can make a quite good assessment of pregnancy. Granted, without having access to Targets systems we cannot know for sure how well it works, but the article seems to strongly imply that it doesn't work, and indeed cannot work.