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
Twenty-eight women participating in a screening program had a breast cancer diagnosed subsequent to the report of a negative mammogram which was read by only one of a group of radiologists. Fourteen occurred prior to a scheduled routine screening visit (interval cancers) and 14 were detected during such an examination. The negative mammograms from the 28 cancer patients, together with those from 120 women without cancer (controls) were independently reviewed by each member of a panel of three radiologists. Forty-six percent of the cancer cases and 5.8% of the controls were interpreted as positive by two or more of the radiologists. These findings suggest that agreement among several independent reviewers enchances the value and accuracy of mamography by reducing the number of false negative interpretations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197910)44:4<1252::aid-cncr2820440414>3.0.co;2-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!