{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019087136929460582, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.090909090909091, '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}}
x. Sources of ‘transition bias’ in cohort statistics

The idea of a cohort is constantly used as a basic tactic in biostatistics. When we contemplate statistics derived from epidemiologic studies of cause of disease, from clinical studies of the course and treatment of disease, or from ontogenetic studies of normal growth, the fundamental scientific logic depends on the investigation of a cohort. A cohort is presumably the source of statistical data dealing with such phenomena as the appearance of lung cancer in cigarette smokers, the occurrence of thrombophlebitis in recipients of the "pill," the survival rates after different forms of treatment for acute myocardial infarction, the development of vascular complications in diabetes mellitus, or the anticipated weight gain in the first year of life. In all of these circumstances, we follow a group of people to see what happens to them after they have been exposed to something: an alleged cause of disease, the action of an established disease, the intervention of a therapeutic agent, or the course of time itself. Despite the many concepts that depend on this type of scientific reasoning and biostatistical interpretation, the idea of a co-