{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016291698991466253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004654771140418929, 'mean_word_length': 5.825396825396825, '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}}
Clinical Science Comparison of Xeroradiographs and Film for Detection of Periapical Lesions

Xeroradiographs and Kodak Ektaspeed film were compared with Kodak Ultraspeed film for their ability to reveal periapical lesions. Cadaver specimens containing teeth which were normal or demonstrated periapical inflammatory disease were used as the test objects. These specimens were first radiographed using xeroradiographic plates or film. Following radiography, histologic analysis revealed the true presence or absence of disease. Ten oral radiologists scored all xeroradiographic and film images of the specimens for the presence of periapical disease. In general, the observers detected about 70% of the cases with periapical disease, while simultaneously considering about 10 to 15% of the normal surfaces to be abnormal. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis of the radiographic decisions revealed little difference in the diagnostic performance of the observers using the various image receptors, although both types of film and low-contrast xeroradiographs viewed in transmitted light were all more useful than low-contrast xeroradiographs viewed in reflected light. In terms of patient dose, both xeroradiographic images and Ektaspeed film are preferred over Ultraspeed film.