{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03289473684210526, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013980263157894737, 'mean_word_length': 5.241025641025641, '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}}
Comparing MiniWright and spirometer measurements of peak expiratory flow.

The accuracy and instrument variability of the MiniWright (Clement Clarke) peak expiratory flow (PEF) meter was determined with 6 of the 24 American Thoracic Society's (ATS) standard waveforms using a mechanical pump. Both room air and air heated to 37 degrees C and saturated with water vapor were used. In addition, MiniWright-determined PEF measurements were compared with those obtained using a dry rolling-seal spirometer (Ohio No. 822; Ohio Medical Products; Madison, Wis) from 75 subjects on 2 different days. The MiniWright average coefficient of variation within a waveform was found to be 2.8%. Results using heated and humidified air (body temperature, ambient pressure, and saturated with water: body conditions) were 2.5% lower than those obtained using room air. Comparisons with mechanically simulated PEF and with spirometry-determined peak flow in 75 human subjects showed that MiniWright meters over-estimated flows at lower flow rates and slightly under-estimated flows at higher flow rates. These results suggest that the new "mechanical PEF" MiniWright scale should be used instead of the "traditional" MiniWright scale.