{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018386108273748723, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006128702757916241, 'mean_word_length': 6.101449275362318, '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}}
Bidirectional Bioelectronic Interfaces: System Design and Circuit Implications

The total economic cost of neurological disorders exceeds £100 billion per annum in the United Kingdom alone, yet pharmaceutical companies continue to cut investments due to failed clinical studies and risk [1]. These challenges motivate an alternative to solely pharmacological treatments. The emerging field of bioelectronics suggests a novel alternative to pharmaceutical intervention that uses electronic hardware to directly stimulate the nervous system with physiologically inspired electrical signals [2]. Given the processing capability of electronics and precise targeting of electrodes, the potential advantages of bioelectronics include specificity in the time, method, and location of treatment, with the ability to iteratively refine and update therapy algorithms in software [3]. A primary disadvantage of the current systems is invasiveness due to surgical implantation of the device.