369 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12115888)
1. Expert system support using a Bayesian belief network for the classification of endometrial hyperplasia.
Morrison ML; McCluggage WG; Price GJ; Diamond J; Sheeran MR; Mulholland KM; Walsh MY; Montironi R; Bartels PH; Thompson D; Hamilton PW
J Pathol; 2002 Jul; 197(3):403-14. PubMed ID: 12115888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.
Zaino RJ; Kauderer J; Trimble CL; Silverberg SG; Curtin JP; Lim PC; Gallup DG
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):804-11. PubMed ID: 16400640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Computerized diagnostic decision support system for the classification of preinvasive cervical squamous lesions.
Price GJ; McCluggage WG; Morrison M ML; McClean G; Venkatraman L; Diamond J; Bharucha H; Montironi R; Bartels PH; Thompson D; Hamilton PW
Hum Pathol; 2003 Nov; 34(11):1193-203. PubMed ID: 14652822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Determining the inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia subgroups and well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma in endometrial curettage specimens.
Izadi-Mood N; Khaniki M; Irvanloo G; Ahmadi SA; Hayeri H; Meysamie A
Arch Iran Med; 2009 Jul; 12(4):377-82. PubMed ID: 19566355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A computer-based training system for breast fine needle aspiration cytology.
Diamond J; Anderson NH; Thompson D; Bartels PH; Hamilton PW
J Pathol; 2002 Jan; 196(1):113-21. PubMed ID: 11748650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A multicentric European study testing the reproducibility of the WHO classification of endometrial hyperplasia with a proposal of a simplified working classification for biopsy and curettage specimens.
Bergeron C; Nogales FF; Masseroli M; Abeler V; Duvillard P; Müller-Holzner E; Pickartz H; Wells M
Am J Surg Pathol; 1999 Sep; 23(9):1102-8. PubMed ID: 10478671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reproducibility of current classifications of endometrial endometrioid glandular proliferations: further evidence supporting a simplified classification.
Ordi J; Bergeron C; Hardisson D; McCluggage WG; Hollema H; Felix A; Soslow RA; Oliva E; Tavassoli FA; Alvarado-Cabrero I; Wells M; Nogales FF
Histopathology; 2014 Jan; 64(2):284-92. PubMed ID: 24111732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the reproducibility of the WHO classifications of 1975 and 1994 of endometrial hyperplasia.
Skov BG; Broholm H; Engel U; Franzmann MB; Nielsen AL; Lauritzen AF; Skov T
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 1997 Jan; 16(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 8986530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Computer-aided application of quantitative microscopy in diagnostic pathology.
Baak JP; Kurver PH; Boon ME
Pathol Annu; 1982; 17 Pt 2():287-306. PubMed ID: 7182754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Endometrial hyperplasias: histology, classification, prognostic significance and therapy].
Horn LC; Bilek K; Schnurrbusch U
Zentralbl Gynakol; 1997; 119(6):251-9. PubMed ID: 9312959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pitfalls in the diagnosis of endometrial neoplasia.
Winkler B; Alvarez S; Richart RM; Crum CP
Obstet Gynecol; 1984 Aug; 64(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 6377150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). Performance of Bayesian belief network for diagnosis and grading.
Montironi R; Bartels PH; Thompson D; Scarpelli M; Hamilton PW
J Pathol; 1995 Oct; 177(2):153-62. PubMed ID: 7490682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Study on the morphology and reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial lesions utilizing liquid-based cytology.
Papaefthimiou M; Symiakaki H; Mentzelopoulou P; Tsiveleka A; Kyroudes A; Voulgaris Z; Tzonou A; Karakitsos P
Cancer; 2005 Apr; 105(2):56-64. PubMed ID: 15751019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Interobserver reproducibility in the pathologic diagnosis of borderline ductal proliferative breast diseases].
Wei B; Bu H; Zhu CR; Guo LX; Chen HJ; Zhao C; Zhang P; Chen DY; Tang Y; Jiang Y
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2004 Nov; 35(6):849-53. PubMed ID: 15573772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Why oral histopathology suffers inter-observer variability on grading oral epithelial dysplasia: an attempt to understand the sources of variation.
Kujan O; Khattab A; Oliver RJ; Roberts SA; Thakker N; Sloan P
Oral Oncol; 2007 Mar; 43(3):224-31. PubMed ID: 16931119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma.
Kendall BS; Ronnett BM; Isacson C; Cho KR; Hedrick L; Diener-West M; Kurman RJ
Am J Surg Pathol; 1998 Aug; 22(8):1012-9. PubMed ID: 9706982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Difficulties and mistakes in the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia].
Kxmel'nitskaia NM; Neĭshtadt EL; Khalimdzhanov ZK
Arkh Patol; 2006; 68(6):39-42. PubMed ID: 17290894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Search for problem areas in endometrial biopsies to achieve quality assurance.
Usubütün A; Ertoy D; Ozkaya O; Altinok G; Kücukali T
Pathol Res Pract; 2000; 196(9):625-6. PubMed ID: 10997737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reproducibility of biopsy diagnoses of endometrial hyperplasia: evidence supporting a simplified classification.
Sherman ME; Ronnett BM; Ioffe OB; Richesson DA; Rush BB; Glass AG; Chatterjee N; Duggan MA; Lacey JV
Int J Gynecol Pathol; 2008 Jul; 27(3):318-25. PubMed ID: 18580308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The comparison of the agreement in determining the histological grade of uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, using the three-grade FIGO classification and the two-grade system.
Demczuk S; Wierzchowski W; Szczepański W; Dyduch G; Czopek J; Stachura J
Pol J Pathol; 2003; 54(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 14703284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
