A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR: imaging of the spine. | LitMetric

Comparison of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MR: imaging of the spine.

Neuroimaging Clin N Am

Division of Neuroradiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Published: May 2006

3 T MR imaging brings with it the possibility of a doubled signal-to-noise ratio compared with 1.5 T systems and the possibility of decreased scan times without reduction in quality. Higher cost and other issues however, also need to be examined.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2006.02.005DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

comparison versus
4
versus imaging
4
imaging spine
4
spine imaging
4
imaging brings
4
brings possibility
4
possibility doubled
4
doubled signal-to-noise
4
signal-to-noise ratio
4
ratio compared
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!