{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025201612903225805, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011592741935483871, 'mean_word_length': 5.638795986622074, '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}}
What are the benefits of phenotype analyses to special education?

The article by Polyak et al. [2015] offers an excellent contribution to the nation’s task of ensuring that evaluations for special education eligibility do not lead cases of misidentification or misdiagnosis. The authors place needed attention to the broader complexities of diagnostic decision-making by highlighting (1) the possibility of co-existing conditions; (2) the possibility of diagnostic re-classification, and (3) the potential of misidentification. As suggested, these complexities highlight the inadequacies of the special education database for measuring disability prevalence at a national level. The authors may be correct in proposing that longitudinal studies with phenotype information are needed. However, at present, the practice of identifying mental disorders—whether it is grounded on a syndrome-based classification system or an administrative special education classification system—is filled with uncertainties [Shattuck and Grosse, 2007; Wodrich et al., 2008]. No symptom could be taken as a clear indicator of mental disorder. These uncertainties may be further compounded by the limitations of human judgement that could lead a team of schoolbased assessors to making errors during the problem-solving process of an assessment for special education eligibility [Lee, 2014]. Although phenotype may be influenced by the gene and environment, the authors could have prepared a more ground-breaking discussion by setting the stage for how future phenotype analyses could contribute to the state of practice in special education assessments. What are the promises of phenotype studies in improving child assessments and, by default, improving the tools used to measure the prevalence of childhood mental disorders? How would the authors propose addressing the problems of clinical heterogeneity of psychiatric phenotypes [Mundo and Kennedy, 2002]? Certainly, not every person who has a given