{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044722719141323794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04114490161001789, 'mean_word_length': 5.357954545454546, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, '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}}
Validity and reliability of nerve and muscle ultrasound

Introduction: Nerve and muscle ultrasound has been studied in several conditions, but validity and reliability have not been assessed systematically. Methods: Nerve cross‐sectional area and muscle thickness were measured ultrasonographically at several sites in 4 cadavers, which were then dissected, and actual measurements were obtained. To assess intrarater and interrater reliability, between 3 and 5 ultrasonographers, with varying experience levels, made repeated measurements on healthy volunteers. Results: Correlation coefficients for nerve and muscle validity were >0.968 (P < 0.001), and for intrarater reliability were >0.901 (P < 0.001) for still and real‐time images. Correlation coefficients for interrater reliability were more varied, but for still images they were all significant at the P < 0.001 (0.542–0.998) level, and for real‐time images they were significant at the P < 0.05 level for half the sites (0.243–0.981). Conclusion: Overall, nerve and muscle ultrasound is a valid and reliable diagnostic imaging technique. Muscle Nerve, 2013