{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012836970474967908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025673940949935813, 'mean_word_length': 5.046511627906977, '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}}
Letters to the Editors

Sirs, Dr Burke incorrectly states that we divided our patients with secondary adrenal failure on the basis of the cortisol response to CRF. This would not be allowed, because in secondary adrenal insufficiency cortisol responses to ACTH or CRF administration may vary, depending mainly on the severity and the duration of disease. Therefore we divided our patients explicitly according to the ACTH response after CRF. The vital point is to demonstrate that patients with secondary adrenal failure, who do not respond to CRF with an ACTH increase really have a pituitary lesion. Recently we have studied five additional patients with secondary adrenal failure (Table one and analysis of the total group of 16 patients provides new evidence for our concept: