{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01734820322180917, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004337050805452293, 'mean_word_length': 4.915750915750916, '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}}
Fishing for a better language

microdeletions than with either aneuploidy interphase descriptions or interphase cancer descriptions. They indicated that in only 5 of 14 challenges that they tried to score was the 80% consensus criteria met to allow scoring a challenge by the CAP resource committee. This number is much lower than that for the conventional cytogenetic challenges. It is somewhat surprising that there was difficulty by laboratories with both the SNRPN probes and X and Y probes in transplants, as delineated by these authors. However, it is not at all surprising that the laboratories had difficulties with probes studying BCR/Abl and Tel/AML1 fusions. For the detection of the BCR/ Abl fusion, there are several different probe sets used to detect the fusion of these two genes. Each of these probe sets will give different interphase FISH patterns, making it more difficult to develop a consistent way of describing the fusion. Additionally, when using the BCR/Abl and Tel/AML1 probe sets to detect fusions, even when the fusion is present, there is sometimes a concomitant deletion of either part of the gene or possibly the entire gene, thus making the description by FISH analysis even more difficult. These are only a few examples, but they certainly illustrate some of the problems regarding the FISH nomenclature as it currently exists. In addition, with the sequencing of the majority of the human genome, many more unique sequence probes can and will be used to describe cytogenetic structure, also complicating nomenclature as multiple probes might be used for its ultimate description.