{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03781174577634755, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010458567980691875, 'mean_word_length': 5.314720812182741, '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': 1, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
After 15 years, has the time come to revise the term "erectile dysfunction?".

In 1993, the National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement on Impotence [1] published the first statement recommending the replacement of the descriptive idiom “impotence” with the new term “erectile dysfunction” (ED). Although today, the word is still used informally, “impotence” has been considered by many to be nonscientific, inaccurate, and potentially degrading. In contrast, from 1993 onward, the term ED has been embraced by the field of sexual medicine based on the belief that it better describes the condition wherein there is an “inability of the male to attain and maintain erection of the penis sufficient to permit satisfactory sexual intercourse” [1]. However, it can be argued that while introducing “erectile dysfunction” into the lexicon solved many of the inconsistencies, problems, and ambiguities that occurred using “impotence,” it is clearly not flawless. The term ED suggests that there is an abnormality in the erectile process, but it does not specifically mean that the abnormality is necessarily due to inadequacy of the erectile response. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the prefix “dys” refers to [2] the following: