{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03263403263403263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02641802641802642, 'mean_word_length': 5.605128205128205, '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}}
Fractal geometric analysis of material from molar and non‐molar pregnancies

Histological sections from 25 non‐molar pregnancies, nine partial hydatidiform moles, and 16 complete hydatidiform moles were examined (diagnosis was taken as the consensus of seven experienced histopathologists) and the fractal dimension was measured using a box‐counting method implemented on a microcomputer‐based image analysis system. The fractal dimensions of the different diagnostic categories were normally distributed with a mean of 1.50 for non‐molar pregnancies, 1.44 for partial moles, and 1.42 for complete moles. All the measured fractal dimensions were greater than the topological dimension (1), demonstrating that the specimens had a fractal element to their structure. There was a significant difference between the fractal dimensions of non‐molar pregnancies and complete moles (P=0.0005), but not between partial moles and non‐molar pregnancies (P=0.0823) or complete and partial moles (P=0.4400). Using the fractal dimension to predict the histopathological diagnosis assigned 56 per cent of the cases to the correct category with a kappa statistic of 0.26, so the fractal dimension, used alone, is not a useful morphometric discriminant in the diagnosis of molar and non‐molar pregnancy.