{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021885521885521887, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02356902356902357, 'mean_word_length': 5.839080459770115, '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}}
Algorithms versus models for analyzing data that contain misclassification errors.

Espeland and Hui (1987, Biometrics 43, 1001-1012) propose a methodology for analysing epidemiologic data contaminated by misclassification. They explicate their algorithm by a data set concerning cervical cancer and circumcision. We reanalyse these data using a conditional independence assumption different from theirs, and reach radically different conclusions. Espeland and Hui's methodology is a form of correlation analysis. We propose an alternative methodology based on the logic of regression analysis.