{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03564547206165703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010597302504816955, 'mean_word_length': 5.374233128834356, '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}}
Screening tests in ambulatory practice.

ABSTRACT To the Editor.— In regard to "Physicians' Use and Opinions of Screening Tests in Ambulatory Practice," (214:2173. 1970), Bates and Mulinare's communication probably was meant to be and certainly is thought provoking; however, I must disagree with portions of it. Continuing from a quotation of Feinstein's, the authors refer to the physicians' need to think in terms of specificity, sensitivity, reliability, and yield. In view of that statement and in view of the poor specificity, sensitivity, and reliability of the most commonly used multiple-channel screening chemistry machine, the next sentence of the communication, "We cannot yet define the optimal place of screening examinations in the health care system" should be italicized, as possibly should be the sentence following it.However, my most serious disagreement with the authors' concept is what they state in their last sentence, ie, their conclusion that physicians fear losing professional control over their practices. It