{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03653444676409186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006263048016701462, 'mean_word_length': 4.919753086419753, '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}}
The labeling problem in aphasia: an illustrative case.

Twenty-five "experts" on neurogenic motor speech disorders participated in a tutorial exercise. Each was given information on M, a patient who had communication difficulties as the result of stroke, and asked to complete a questionnaire about his problem. The information included a detailed case description, an audiotape of M's speech obtained at 4, 9, 13, and 17 days post-stroke, and test results from the Western Aphasia Battery, the Token Test, and a battery for apraxia of speech. The experts were in excellent agreement on M's primary problem, although it was called by seven different names. The experts were in poor agreement on his secondary problem(s), e.g., the presence and type of aphasia and dysarthria. The results suggest that labeling is difficult, even for "experts." Furthermore, the practicing clinician needs to be sensitive to the likelihood of more than one coexisting problem.