{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028455284552845527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009485094850948509, 'mean_word_length': 4.293906810035843, '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}}
Lecture Notes on Medical Statistics

reviewer claims to have read material in the book that in fact does not exist in it. The probability of accepting a null hypothesis is never mentioned. The acceptance of a null hypothesis is a common fallacy (p 63) arising from the misinterpretation of the result of a significance test. In addition, tests in the book are not described as "best," whether related to the t test or x2 test. (4) The reviewer states that a description of what to do with small two by two tables is called for. If by "small" he refers to the fact that the table has only two rows and two columns, then a full description of what to do is provided (pp 91-92). If on the other hand "small" refers to small expected frequencies in the two by two table, then it is stated (p 91) that Fisher's exact test is warranted and a reference is provided for a full discussion of the test. This is generally adequate for the non-specialist, as Fisher's exact test is cumbersome and is rarely performed without the aid of a computer, so that it is not deemed necessary to include details of the method in an elementary text. (5) Finally, the reviewer states that the comparison between three or more groups is never mentioned. Clearly he failed to read p 118, where precisely this situation is discussed. Unfortunately the reviewer saw fit to consider only these five points in relation to my book. The remainder of his review, although topical, is not specific to the book.