{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023183925811437404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014683153013910355, 'mean_word_length': 4.807174887892376, '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}}
Reactogenicity of fluid compared with adsorbed diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine.

Shortly after the introduction of adsorbed diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine in British Columbia the frequency of reports of reactions to the vaccine increased. As the reasons for the increase were not clear a study was carried out in five health units to compare the reactions to adsorbed DPT vaccine manufactured by Wyeth Ltd. and Connaught Laboratories Ltd. and fluid DPT vaccines manufactured by Connaught, all the vaccines being injected in the anterolateral thigh. From the responses on 1619 questionnaires that the parents of vaccinated children had completed it was found that the relative risk of a reaction was higher with the fluid than with the adsorbed Connaught vaccine (1.7 for redness and 1.8 for swelling on the day of vaccination but 1.0 for drowsiness and 1.3 for persistent crying). The size and duration of local redness and swelling were also greater with the fluid than with the adsorbed Connaught vaccines. The results with the Wyeth and Connaught vaccine were very similar. Only 10% of the parents said that there had been no reaction; 9% said that the reaction was severe, and 6% said that it was completely unacceptable. The overall frequency of local reactions was 86.1%.