{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039473684210526314, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014035087719298246, 'mean_word_length': 4.565853658536585, '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}}
Mammographic practice and dosimetry in Britain.

A survey of mammographic techniques and dosimetry in 61 NHS centres in Britain has been completed. Physical parameters measured at each centre included tube output, half-value thickness, peak kilovoltage, surface dose and percentage depth dose. Ionisation and thermoluminescence dosimetry were employed and image quality was assessed subjectively using a test phantom. Absorbed doses are given at the plane surface of an average-sized, 5 cm thick homogenous breast composed of 50% fat and 50% water. The doses fall naturally into the four combinations of molybdenum (Mo) and tungsten (W) targets and film (F) and xerox (X) receptors. The Mo/X group produced the best images of the phantom but also the highest mean dose of 3.26 cGy (rad) for a cranio-caudad (c-c) view and its use does not seem justified for asymptomatic screening. The Mo/Lo-Dose or MIN-R film combination gave a mean dose of 0.95 cGy(rad) for a c-c view whereas the W/X group gave 0.89 cGy(rad) and superior image quality. The W/F group gave the poorest image quality and its continued use for mammography is questionable.