{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03543913713405239, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031587057010785825, 'mean_word_length': 4.877828054298643, '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}}
Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney.

The role of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of the kidney was analyzed in 18 persons (6 normal volunteers, 3 patients with pelvocaliectasis, 2 with peripelvic cysts, 1 with renal sinus lipomatosis, 3 with renal failure, 1 with glycogen storage disease, and 2 with polycystic kidney disease). Ultrasound and/or computed tomography (CT) studies were available for comparison in every case. In the normal kidney distinct anatomical structures were clearly differentiated by NMR. The best anatomical detail was obtained with spin echo (SE) imaging, using a pulse sequence interval of 1,000 msec and an echo delay time of 28 msec. However, in the evaluation of normal and pathological conditions, all four intensity images (SE 500/28, SE 500/56, SE 1,000/28, and SE 1,000/56) have to be analyzed. No definite advantage was found in using SE imaging with a pulse sequence interval of 1,500 msec. Inversion recovery imaging enhanced the differences between the cortex and medulla, but it had a low signal-to-noise level and, therefore, a suboptimal overall resolution. The advantages of NMR compared with CT and ultrasound are discussed, and it is concluded that NMR imaging will prove to be a useful modality in the evaluation of renal disease.