{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031207598371777476, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013568521031207597, 'mean_word_length': 4.765625, '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}}
Summary of Case Discussions by Panel Leaders

DR. EKLOF: Today we will start by summarizing the workshops of yesterday, under the leadership of Andrew Nicolaides. DR. NICOLAIDES: Good morning, everybody. We had a wonderful session yesterday and our task today is to get conclusions out of these very carefully selected instructive cases. I have briefed the chairman of each panel. It would be very nice if they present their comments on the key issues that emerged under those three headings. The heading, No. 1, are these issues standard, accepted, and/or essential? Two, are they controversial, and why? For example, are they controversial because all three methods are equally good or are they controversial because there are no data?