{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016765285996055226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004930966469428008, 'mean_word_length': 5.766666666666667, '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}}
Evaluation of pelvic masses with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography.

Magnetic resonance imaging is becoming increasingly useful in characterizing adnexal masses, whereas endovaginal ultrasound is an invaluable technique for examining the uterus and adnexa. This pictorial essay depicts the internal architectural details necessary for characterization of various adnexal masses imaged with both EVU and MR imaging. Forty consecutive examinations that revealed 51 adnexal masses were reviewed. All patients had MR imaging and EVU examinations within 1 week of each other. T1‐ and T2‐weighted images in coronal, axial, and sagittal planes were included. Fat suppression technique also was used in selected cases. EVU, because of its high spatial resolution, was able to depict better internal architectural details, allowing specific diagnosis of most adnexal masses, whereas MR imaging was superior in differentiating hemorrhagic masses from dermoids when specific fat suppression techniques were used.