{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04966641957005189, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03261675315048184, 'mean_word_length': 4.69620253164557, '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}}
[To re-evaluate the clinical classification criteria of liver failure].

OBJECTIVE
To study the clinical feature and more reasonable diagnostic typing criteria for patients with liver failure.


METHODS
13/21 cases of ALF, SALF with no past liver disease, 49/72 cases of with chronic hepatitis, and 23/73 cases ALF, SALF with liver cirrhosis, were analyzed respectively.


RESULTS
1 ALF patients (1). There exist significant statistic differences in ALB, ALT, CHE in three ALF groups.(2). It had statistic differences in those patients with hepatic encephalopathy.(3). The prognosis of the patients with chronic hepatitis group (42.85 percent) was best than that of chronic cirrhosis (26.09 percent) and no past liver disease (15.38 percent). (2) In SALF patients (1). There exist significant statistic differences in ALB, GLO, ALT, AST, BDIL, GLU and CHE in three SALF groups.(2). It had statistic differences in those patients with hepatic encephalopathy in three SALF groups.(3). The prognosis of the patients with chronic hepatitis group (51.39 percent) was best than that of chronic cirrhosis (36.85 percent) and no past liver disease (33.33 percent).


CONCLUSION
There are different clinic feature and prognosis in three ALF or SALF groups, so we suggest that it were clinic practicability and science in classify of liver failure at present.