{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016608391608391608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3259668508287294, '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}}
Antiarrhythmic Device Advisories and Recalls: Managing an Increasingly Vulnerable Process

The reporting of medical device advisories and recalls in the lay press has become an increasingly common occurrence. In disseminating a concern to the public, this process has heightened awareness, and perhaps promoted early medical contact for those at risk in the patient population. Yet, for too many health care professionals and patients, this may be the first public utterance or written word on the issue, causing concern regarding the limit. In an effort to handle these issues with sensitivity and objectivity, most organizations involved in such events often issue carefully formulated press releases along with scientific communications. It is unclear if this effort has made the process less vulnerable to miscommunication. It is clear however, that all such processes have a peculiar predilection to inspire public controversy, often without the restraint of scientific debate. In dissecting this process, it is equally important to comment on the objective elements, in other words the anatomy, as well as the psychology of such an event.