{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01735357917570499, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032537960954446853, 'mean_word_length': 5.236486486486487, '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}}
[Comparison of different methods for estimating fetal weight by cephalo- and abdominometry (author's transl)].

To check the accuracy of different published methods of fetal weight estimation based on head and abdominal parameters, all methods were used in every individual case in 123 pregnancies. It became apparent that the single methods gave the best results in different indications. As far as normal fetal development at term is concerned the best results were achieved by estimating the weight from the biparietal and the abdominal diameters whereas in macrosomy the prediction of fetal weight became much more precise in using head and abdominal circumferences. In premature and small-for-date infants, however, the best results were recorded if only the abdominal circumference was used for this reason reflecting the importance of the severe reduction in volume of the big parenchymateous organs of the abdomen.