{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021052631578947368, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007017543859649123, 'mean_word_length': 5.206521739130435, '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}}
Reexamining the double jeopardy to health thesis.

The purposes of this article are twofold: (a) to clarify the evaluation of the double jeopardy thesis and (b) to evaluate two apparently contradictory sets of results on the double jeopardy to health derived from the same data (National Council on the Aging, 1975). The results offer no support for the double jeopardy thesis based on a subjective assessment of health problems. Both logistic regression analysis and multiple discriminant analysis were used to estimate the relationships among the variables considered.