{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04085603112840467, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01556420233463035, 'mean_word_length': 5.518987341772152, '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}}
A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics

Three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound is gaining popularity in prenatal diagnosis. While there are no studies regarding the safety of 3D ultrasound, it is now widely performed in non‐medical facilities, for non‐diagnostic purposes. The present study was aimed at comparing the acoustic output, as expressed by thermal index (TI) and mechanical index (MI), of conventional two‐dimensional (2D) and 3D/4D ultrasound during pregnancy.