{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02033271719038817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.685185185185185, '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}}
Our rapidly changing understanding of acute and chronic disorders of consciousness: challenges for neurologists

A number of recent studies suggest that some ‘vegetative state’ patients have been misdiagnosed, judging by their ability to follow commands and in some cases even communicate through brain activity. Such studies highlight the difficulty in forming a diagnosis based only on behavioral assessments. We think that neuroimaging and electrophysiology methods will be used more frequently in clinical settings, integrated with existing behavioral assessments. Such efforts are expected to lead to a more accurate understanding of individual patients’ cognitive abilities or even provide prognostic indicators. In terms of treatment planning (i.e., pain management and end-of-life decision-making), patients with disorders of consciousness are now offered the possibility of expressing their preferences by means of brain‐computer interfaces. What remains to be clarified is the degree to which such indirect responses can be considered reliable and of legal representation.