{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014705882352941176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2846153846153845, '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}}
Bloodtyping and twin zygosity: reassessment and extension.

The determination of twin zygosity by bloodtyping is reconsidered, and the model for the individual case is reformulated. The crucial diagnostic question may be phrased as follows: Given the particular array of bloodgroup phenotypes that the twins display and are concordant for, how might this array have been obtained by a pair of dizygotic twins, and how might the array have been obtained by a monozygotic pair? The solution yields a differential probability value that is uniquely tailored to the actual phenotype array shown. The procedure offers a coherent and more direct method for arriving at the needed probability figures, and it is recommended to supersede previous methods. Some similarities and differences between the methods are discussed.