{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022613065326633167, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005025125628140704, 'mean_word_length': 5.697478991596639, '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}}
Con: Patient and graft survival outcome at 1 and 3 years posttransplant do not reflect the value of successful liver transplantation

Because short-term survival exceeds 90% for most transplant indications, survival-only models have poor discrimination for center performance. Current methods of determining transplant success do not account for poor long-term health, decreased physical functioning, impaired mental health, and inability to return to work experienced by recipients. In addition to survival, patient quality of life and key quality measures including rejection, return to operating room, length of stay, readmissions, and long-term complications of immunosuppression should all be used as part of a comprehensive metric to measure successful outcomes at liver transplant centers.