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
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the detection of interproximal caries in digital intraoral images presented in a 24-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and the IPad 2.
Study Design: Twenty-seven digital bitewing radiographs of 102 adult teeth were generated by a charge-coupled device sensor and presented to 4 dentists in 2 sessions. The dentists were asked to rate the presence or absence of carious lesions using a 5-point scale. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were weighted using the Wilcoxon test, and the z test for the receiver operating characteristic curves.
Results: For the IPad 2 and LCD monitor, A(z) values were 0.87 and 0.86, respectively. For the tablet, the mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.75, 0.86, and 0.83, respectively. For the LCD monitor, these values were 0.77, 0.82, and 0.80, respectively.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.008 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!