{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034688995215311005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005980861244019139, 'mean_word_length': 4.853146853146853, '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}}
Blood typing and twin zygosity: a comparison of two methods.

In a recent paper in this journal [5], Wilson offers a revision of his previously published method [4] for diagnosing the zygosity of twins from bloodtype findings. Wilson notes that his revised method will yield the same results (given the same estimates of gene frequencies) as will the methods described by Smith and Penrose [2], Sutton et al [3], and Lykken [1], and he advocates his new method, over the others, as being "simplest and most direct." He also reinterprets various quantities employed by Lykken and proposes a different index of the efficiency of a genetic marker for zygosity diagnosis. In this note, I attempt to clarify the relationship between Wilson's revised method and my own, so that the reader can more accurately assess their relative advantages.