{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027920646583394562, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013960323291697281, 'mean_word_length': 4.7957446808510635, '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}}
Response to Lundberg's "Perspective" in the April 1992 Bulletin.

Upon reading Dr. Lundberg's "Perspective" in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, I reflected on his reminder of the failure of AMA/ NET and share his disappointment. However, perhaps this failure symbolizes our success as medical librarians: we are doing a good job. If this were not the case, physicians would be grasping for new methods of information transfer, and AMA/NET would be expanding at this very moment. As director of the health sciences library for a teaching hospital system consisting of 1,100 beds and serving 700 physicians, I operate with a staff and budget far below recommended MLA standards (1984). However, at a recent reception to welcome two new medical education faculty members, I heard one of our toughest-to-please physicians praise the library as a place where he "always got what he wanted." I have discovered that the computer savvy of our house staff far exceeds that of our seasoned medical staff. Most senior physicians prefer that the library staff do computer searching, leaving them more time for patient care. My sympathies go to the American Medical Association for their financial losses in AMA/NET. But perhaps they attempted to market a product already available in superior quality. Medical librarians, take a bow!