The only other semi-substantive point is that this company was "heavily criticized" for using a lot patient data (presumably for training?) without proper authorization in the UK.
But I'm not really sure what makes that "heavy criticism" or why I should care.
It really seems like a non-article that only serves to give a nebulous negative haze without providing any information of value.
The only other semi-substantive point is that this company was "heavily criticized" for using a lot patient data (presumably for training?) without proper authorization in the UK.
But I'm not really sure what makes that "heavy criticism" or why I should care.
It really seems like a non-article that only serves to give a nebulous negative haze without providing any information of value.