155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24404130)
1. Histology verification demonstrates that biospectroscopy analysis of cervical cytology identifies underlying disease more accurately than conventional screening: removing the confounder of discordance.
Gajjar K; Ahmadzai AA; Valasoulis G; Trevisan J; Founta C; Nasioutziki M; Loufopoulos A; Kyrgiou M; Stasinou SM; Karakitsos P; Paraskevaidis E; Da Gama-Rose B; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e82416. PubMed ID: 24404130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biospectroscopy insights into the multi-stage process of cervical cancer development: probing for spectral biomarkers in cytology to distinguish grades.
Purandare NC; Patel II; Trevisan J; Bolger N; Kelehan R; von Bünau G; Martin-Hirsch PL; Prendiville WJ; Martin FL
Analyst; 2013 Jul; 138(14):3909-16. PubMed ID: 23338619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A biospectroscopic interrogation of fine needle aspirates points towards segregation between graded categories: an initial study towards diagnostic screening.
Kelly JG; Ahmadzai AA; Hermansen P; Pitt MA; Saidan Z; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
Anal Bioanal Chem; 2011 Aug; 401(3):957-67. PubMed ID: 21660416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopic screening of exfoliated cervical cells with standard Papanicolaou screening.
Fung Kee Fung M; Senterman M; Eid P; Faught W; Mikhael NZ; Wong PT
Gynecol Oncol; 1997 Jul; 66(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 9234913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Vibrational biospectroscopy coupled with multivariate analysis extracts potentially diagnostic features in blood plasma/serum of ovarian cancer patients.
Owens GL; Gajjar K; Trevisan J; Fogarty SW; Taylor SE; Da Gama-Rose B; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
J Biophotonics; 2014 Apr; 7(3-4):200-9. PubMed ID: 24259229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison between Siriraj liquid-based and conventional cytology for detection of abnormal cervicovaginal smears: a split-sample study.
Laiwejpithaya S; Rattanachaiyanont M; Benjapibal M; Khuakoonratt N; Boriboonhirunsarn D; Laiwejpithaya S; Sangkarat S; Wongtiraporn W
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2008; 9(4):575-80. PubMed ID: 19256741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. ATR microspectroscopy with multivariate analysis segregates grades of exfoliative cervical cytology.
Walsh MJ; Singh MN; Pollock HM; Cooper LJ; German MJ; Stringfellow HF; Fullwood NJ; Paraskevaidis E; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
Biochem Biophys Res Commun; 2007 Jan; 352(1):213-9. PubMed ID: 17141660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Exploiting biospectroscopy as a novel screening tool for cervical cancer: towards a framework to validate its accuracy in a routine clinical setting.
Purandare NC; Trevisan J; Patel II; Gajjar K; Mitchell AL; Theophilou G; Valasoulis G; Martin M; von Bünau G; Kyrgiou M; Paraskevaidis E; Martin-Hirsch PL; Prendiville WJ; Martin FL
Bioanalysis; 2013 Nov; 5(21):2697-711. PubMed ID: 24180508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Segregation of ovarian cancer stage exploiting spectral biomarkers derived from blood plasma or serum analysis: ATR-FTIR spectroscopy coupled with variable selection methods.
Lima KM; Gajjar KB; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
Biotechnol Prog; 2015; 31(3):832-9. PubMed ID: 25832726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Is a liquid-based cytology more sensitive than a conventional Pap smear?
Sigurdsson K
Cytopathology; 2013 Aug; 24(4):254-63. PubMed ID: 23331613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Role of cytological test for cervices to identify human papillomavirus in the screening program on serious cervical lesion].
Wang GP; Li RZ; Wu LN; Li J; Liu ZH; Wang C; Zhou YQ; Weng LM; Wu RF
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Jun; 30(6):626-30. PubMed ID: 19957634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Detection of transformation zone cells in liquid-based cytology and its comparison with conventional smears.
Campaner AB; Fernandes GL
Diagn Cytopathol; 2020 Aug; 48(8):752-758. PubMed ID: 32394634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening.
Akamatsu S; Kodama S; Himeji Y; Ikuta N; Shimagaki N
Acta Cytol; 2012; 56(4):370-4. PubMed ID: 22846595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. FTIR microspectroscopic study of cell types and potential confounding variables in screening for cervical malignancies.
Wood BR; Quinn MA; Tait B; Ashdown M; Hislop T; Romeo M; McNaughton D
Biospectroscopy; 1998; 4(2):75-91. PubMed ID: 9557903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative study between Pap smear cytology and FTIR spectroscopy: a new tool for screening for cervical cancer.
El-Tawil SG; Adnan R; Muhamed ZN; Othman NH
Pathology; 2008 Oct; 40(6):600-3. PubMed ID: 18752127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. SpinThin, a simple, inexpensive technique for preparation of thin-layer cervical cytology from liquid-based specimens: data on 791 cases.
Khalbuss WE; Rudomina D; Kauff ND; Chuang L; Melamed MR
Cancer; 2000 Jun; 90(3):135-42. PubMed ID: 10896326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A spectral phenotype of oncogenic human papillomavirus-infected exfoliative cervical cytology distinguishes women based on age.
Kelly JG; Cheung KT; Martin C; O'Leary JJ; Prendiville W; Martin-Hirsch PL; Martin FL
Clin Chim Acta; 2010 Aug; 411(15-16):1027-33. PubMed ID: 20359472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy and Efficiency of Deep-Learning-Based Automation of Dual Stain Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening.
Wentzensen N; Lahrmann B; Clarke MA; Kinney W; Tokugawa D; Poitras N; Locke A; Bartels L; Krauthoff A; Walker J; Zuna R; Grewal KK; Goldhoff PE; Kingery JD; Castle PE; Schiffman M; Lorey TS; Grabe N
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 Jan; 113(1):72-79. PubMed ID: 32584382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation.
Longatto Filho A; Pereira SM; Di Loreto C; Utagawa ML; Makabe S; Sakamoto Maeda MY; Marques JA; Santoro CL; Castelo A
Gynecol Oncol; 2005 May; 97(2):497-500. PubMed ID: 15863150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative study of the results from conventional cervico-vaginal oncotic cytology and liquid-based cytology.
Stabile SA; Evangelista DH; Talamonte VH; Lippi UG; Lopes RG
Einstein (Sao Paulo); 2012; 10(4):466-72. PubMed ID: 23386088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
