{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02452316076294278, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005449591280653951, 'mean_word_length': 5.598802395209581, '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}}
Reply to Lipsker et al. and Revuz on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Terminology: The Imaging Point of View

Furthermore, the latter experience has been reported by researchers working in different countries [8, 9] . Therefore, considering the information and definitions of key subclinical anatomical lesions (pseudocyst, fluid collection, fistulous tract) in HS that have been described by imaging, particularly color Doppler ultrasound in the adult and pediatric population [8, 10] , the initial clinical discordance between experts reported by Lipsker et al. [1] is not surprising. Moreover, the difficulty of achieving common definitions on just clinically based examinations or staging systems that could match the actual anatomical abnormalities with their exact spatial positioning and volumetric features is also to be expected. Therefore, from the imaging point of view, the usage of an anatomically based common terminology in HS that could bring together the experience of a multispecialist team with clinicians, imaging professionals and pathologists may perhaps simplify the task in the future.