{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033576642335766425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017518248175182483, 'mean_word_length': 5.471698113207547, '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}}
Unmasking the benefits of CDP.

The conclusions reached by Belenky et al. (Pediatrics 58:800, December 1976) in their controlled study of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared to conventional respiratory management are both surprising and disconcerting. In the commentary by Wung et al. that appeared in the same issue (p. 783) the physiological benefits of continuous distending pressure (CDP) are well summarized and the conclusion is reached that, for reasons which were not clear, the controlled study failed to confirm the superiority of CDP over conventional respiratory management in respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).