{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031616982836495035, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007226738934056007, 'mean_word_length': 5.7975460122699385, '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 survey of abdominal ultrasound scanners: The clinician's point of view

To obtain information on the characteristics of abdominal ultrasound scanners available in the United States, a survey of fifteen manufacturers was undertaken between January and August of 1978. Fourteen manufacturers responded, providing data on thirteen dynamic image scanners and six static image scanners. The latter were of only one type but the former could be subdivided into four classes: linear array (9), annular array (1), rotating crystals (1), and sector (2). The data received, which have only manufacturer verification, were used to compare these instruments. This comparision examined initial cost, transducer characteristics, sound generation systems, signal processing procedures, scan converters, use of minicomputers, image characteristics, and available service. A discussion of the problem of choosing an ultrasound scanner for clinical use is presented. The importance of the specific imaging problem, patient volume, operational procedures used, cost and instrument maintenance in such decisions is discussed.