{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02435897435897436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.961832061068702, '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}}
A Call to Standardize Measures for Judging the Efficacy of Interventions to Aid Patients' Decision Making

and excess mortality rates are relatively low. Even in these situations, though, the relative force of competing causes of mortality can be determined using the technique. Although one might wonder whether a two-part DEALE would have helped to improve accuracy or diminish biases, such maneuvers would raise another question: "At what point in time should one separate the two parts?" The message here is that more complex models are often more accurate, or at least appear to be. The tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy is common in decision modeling. Here, the clinician must ask: when is the simple approximation good enough, and when does DEALE-ing stack the deck?