{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047569803516028956, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02171664943123061, 'mean_word_length': 5.205128205128205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
No need for pulmonologists to interpret pulmonary function tests

The interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) is an everyday task for every pulmonologist. This interpretation relies on simple rules that were standardised in 2005 by the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force [1]. This task force pointed out that the definition of abnormal patterns (obstructive, restrictive, and mixed defects) would logically be based on a statistical approach; namely, an obstructive defect is a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/vital capacity (VC) ratio <5th percentile (or a z-score of FEV1 <−1.645) and a restrictive defect is a total lung capacity (TLC) <5th percentile (or a z-score of TLC <−1.645). The interpretation of pulmonary function tests can be easily automated, but whether artificial intelligence is warranted for diagnosis remains open to debate, even if this aid seems already available http://bit.ly/2x93kQB