{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029451137884872823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007362784471218206, 'mean_word_length': 5.7342342342342345, '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}}
The Outcomes of Scientific Debates Should Be Published: The Arivale Story.

There is an ongoing scientific debate regarding the merits and shortcomings of P4 Medicine (predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory) and O4 Medicine (overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and overcharging). P4 Medicine promises to revolutionize scientific wellness through longitudinal big data collection, denoted as "dense phenotyping," which could uncover early, actionable signs of disease, thus allowing earlier interventions and possible disease reversal. On the other hand, O4 Medicine draws attention to the potential side effects of P4 Medicine: overtesting, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and overcharging fees. Preliminary data from the P4 Medicine concept have been recently published. A novel biotechnology company, Arivale, provided customers with services based on P4 Medicine principles; however it could not sustain its operations and closed its doors in April 2019. In this report, we provide our own insights as to why Arivale failed. While we do not discount that in the future, improved testing strategies may provide a path to better health, we suggest that until the evidence is provided, selling of such products to the public, especially through the "direct to consumer" approach, should be discouraged. We hope that our analysis will provide useful information for the burgeoning fields of personalized medicine, preventive medicine, and direct to consumer health testing.