{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014460511679644048, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011123470522803114, 'mean_word_length': 5.428571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?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}}
A Model Stroke Classification Scheme and Its Use in Outcome Research

The current International Classification of Disease #9 (ICD) categories for stroke are useless as a tool for functional outcome research. This classification's only minimally relevant distinction is between ischemic and hemorrhagic events. The distinction between extracranial occlusive disease and intracranial occlusive disease as the cause of stroke cannot be made unless there is proven complete occlusion of the internal carotid artery. The distinction between thrombotic and embolic events is based on clinical suspicion and has poor interrater reliability. There is no mechanism for specifying either the location or extent of the stroke. I am not aware of any study that shows a difference in functional outcome for any of the ICD stroke subcategories compared with the general category "Stroke, Not Otherwise Specified."