{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020380434782608696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008152173913043478, 'mean_word_length': 5.63963963963964, '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}}
Do we evaluate outcome appropriately?

We discuss two different ways of measuring outcome in a sample of 20 patients who had intracranial aneurysm surgery. Patients were evaluated at discharge using the Karnofsky Scale and the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Six months after discharge we conducted a neuropsychiatric evaluation including cognitive, behavioral, and mood status assessment. Although 13 of our patients had a "good recovery', 18 had some neuropsychiatric impairment. We did not find statistical relationships between the discharge evaluation and the neuropsychiatric assessment at follow-up. We discuss the need for developing new outcome measures to pick-up neuropsychiatric deficits, beyond the traditional neurologic semiology.