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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
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
In 10 patients with hepatoma, magnetic resonance (MR) and CT of the liver were subjectively compared and correlated with surgical or autopsy findings. In five cases MR defined the extent of the tumor better. Magnetic resonance was particularly useful in differentiating the tumor from otherwise abnormal areas of the liver, mostly focal cirrhosis. Magnetic resonance has the advantage of demonstrating major vessels in relation to the hepatoma without injection of any contrast agent. Calcifications well visualized on CT are not seen on MR. The lack of dynamic bolus CT in the majority of our cases as well as our inability to examine the entire liver with all three MR pulse sequences because of time restraint are significant limitations of this retrospective study.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198507010-00016 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!