{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027700831024930747, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002770083102493075, 'mean_word_length': 6.019417475728155, '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}}
[Ultrasonic angiocardiography and ultrasonic cineangiography: comparison between two techniques (author's transl)].

In a comparison of the performances of ultrasonic tomography (UT) versus ultrasonic cineangiography (UC), a new technique of cross sectional imaging of the heart using a low resolution (40 lines per frame) real time multiscanner apparatus, was performed. Technical problems related to both techiques are reviewed and discussed. UT seems to deserve consideration when precise anatomical details are required while UC is particularly recommended when function studies are indicated, but mainly if computer facilities are available. Both systems represent a real technical advance on conventional echography.