{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05947955390334572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.048327137546468404, 'mean_word_length': 4.855072463768116, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Distinct ethanol drinking microstructures in two replicate lines of mice selected for drinking to intoxication

The authors have detected an error in the reporting of the statistical analysis of ethanol preference ratio. The text currently states, “Analysis of ethanol preference ratio (ethanol intake/total intake) yielded only a main effect of sex (F1,63 = 41.877, P < 0.001), with female mice having a greater ethanol preference ratio than male mice.” This is incorrect and should instead read as “Analysis of ethanol preference ratio (ethanol intake/total intake) yielded significant main effects of sex (males> females, F1,63 =5.952, p=0.018) and genotype (F2,63 =7.252, p=0.001). Post hoc analyses showed that HDID-1 mice had a greater preference ratio than both HDID-2 and HS mice (p≤0.01 for both).”