{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0204855842185129, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007587253414264037, 'mean_word_length': 5.078341013824885, '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}}
Peer Review of Medical Expert Witnesses

His concern about the honesty, and even competence, of expert witnesses is well founded, and is also shared by some in the legal community.’ Data obtained from the Massachusetts expert witness project suggests that inaccurate testimony is not a rare occurrence.3 However, there are practical problems with both the effectiveness and implementation of such a system. The cost and time of initiating such a process is obvious. However, the cost/benefit ratio is less apparent because the prevalence of the problem of dishonest or inaccurate testimony is not really known. Part of the difficulty in quantifying the extent of such testimony is in actually defining it. It is important to distinguish testimony that is dishonest (eg, expert testifying falsely about credentials) from what may be inaccurate. The former is much easier to determine than the latter. Determining what may be inaccurate is far more subject to interpretation, especially when applying general medical tenets and statistical data to any individual patient. One who sincerely maintains a minority view of a subject is not necessarily subscribing to an &dquo;unproven theory&dquo; nor proffering an inaccurate opinion. An expert need only testify, in good faith, as to her or his opinion about an individual