{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020313942751615882, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014773776546629732, 'mean_word_length': 5.3023255813953485, '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}}
Progress toward resolving the controversy of positive Vs. negative interstitial fluid pressure.

PRIOR to 1960, interstitial fluid pressure was considered widely to be slightly above atmospheric pressure, averaging about +1 to +5 mm Hg. In 1963, Guyton reported that interstitial fluid pressure in dog subcutaneous tissue was negative relative to atmospheric pressure, averaging —6.4 mm Hg. Since 1963, there has been a continuing controversy as to whether the tissue fluid pressure is normally positive or negative relative to the ambient pressure. Although this difference of only a few mm Hg may appear insignificant, it is of major importance for several reasons which are discussed below. Consequently, a unified understanding of interstitial fluid pressure and its measurement is needed. In the last few years, considerable data have emerged which suggest that the existing controversy may be resolvable. This can be accomplished by first integrating the recent data with past information, and then suggesting additional studies which may more completely explore the arguments.