{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014127144298688193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.7482993197278915, '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}}
Patience, patients, and the potential of medical preprints

Current debate over the merits of preprints for medical research turns on the potential benefits and harms to follow, often centered on purported differences that make clinical research unique among the sciences. Despite growing interest, existing discussions of this issue are generally brief and lack comprehensive appraisal of considerations and arguments. In this essay, I attempt a thorough analysis of the open questions for medicine regarding preprints, surveying existing concerns and claims, identifying what characteristics set medical research apart from its peers, and offering perspective on possible futures for medical preprints. I conclude that the extant claims of potential harms do not support recommendations of prohibition. Despite this, legitimate differences in the character and consequences of medical research give cause for more caution in the implementation of preprints than in other scientific fields.