{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026243093922651933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013812154696132596, 'mean_word_length': 5.041666666666667, '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}}
In CPR, less may be better.

Fifty years have passed since Kouwenhoven, Jude, and Knickerbocker1 proposed external chest compression to provide circulation of blood to the brain and heart after cardiac arrest. Shortly thereafter, mouth-to-mouth rescue breathing was adopted as an essential addition to this lifesaving procedure. Since that time, there has been very little fundamental change in the method or manner of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Decades of observational studies have shown that survival is improved if CPR is performed by bystanders rather than being provided only when emergency medical services (EMS) staff arrives. The use of automated external defibrillators by bystanders and the use of . . .