{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0324254215304799, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019455252918287938, 'mean_word_length': 4.893129770992366, '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}}
Case 12-2012: An infant with vomiting.

To the Editor: The illustrative figure (Fig. 1A of the article) in the Case Record involving a 10-monthold girl with vomiting and episodes of unresponsiveness (April 19 issue)1 is incorrect because it depicts an ileocolic intussusception rather than an idiopathic ileocecocolic intussusception,2 which this girl had. In the accompanying abdominal radiograph (Fig. 1B of the article), the cecal gas is absent because the cecum and the appendix are included in the intussusceptum. In the illustrative figure, the cecum appears unaffected and is depicted in the right iliac fossa, but in the images depicting the pneumatic reduction (Fig. 2 of the article), the position of the cecum is quite high, almost at the right upper quadrant.