These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

61 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3881232)

  • 1. A model for the classification of specimens containing random proportions of abnormal cells.
    Timmers T; Gelsema ES
    Cytometry; 1985 Jan; 6(1):22-5. PubMed ID: 3881232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of random abnormal cell proportion on specimen classifier performance.
    Castleman KR; Price KH; White BS
    Cytometry; 1993; 14(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 8432197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of abnormal cell proportion on specimen classifier performance.
    Castleman KR; White BS
    Cytometry; 1981 Nov; 2(3):155-8. PubMed ID: 7297350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
    Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
    Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Multidimensional slit-scan prescreening system: preliminary results of a single blind clinical study.
    Wheeless LL; Patten SF; Berkan TK; Brooks CL; Gorman KM; Lesh SR; Lopez PA; Wood JC
    Cytometry; 1984 Jan; 5(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 6697819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A statistical analysis of prescreening alarms in a population of normal and abnormal gynecologic specimens.
    Wheeless LL; Robinson RD; Cox C; Berkan TK; Reeder JE
    Cytometry; 1986 Mar; 7(2):205-11. PubMed ID: 3948609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improved model for specimen classification based on single-cell classifiers.
    Cox C; Wheeless LL; Reeder JE; Robinson RD; Berkan TK
    Cytometry; 1987 May; 8(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 3595350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear: lessons from the science of error prevention.
    Derman H
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):287-91. PubMed ID: 9111120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Simulation model for gynecologic specimen classification in a high-resolution prescreening system.
    Ott R
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1984 Dec; 6(4):262-71. PubMed ID: 6397085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Field test results using the BioPEPR cervical smear prescreening system.
    Zahniser DJ; Oud PS; Raaijmakers MC; Vooys GP; Van de Walle RT
    Cytometry; 1980 Nov; 1(3):200-3. PubMed ID: 7021104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Rapid, high throughput determination of cervical cytology specimen adequacy using a capillary-based cytometer.
    Polina R; Sturgis C; Patterson J; Patterson BK
    Cytometry B Clin Cytom; 2008 Mar; 74(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 18044721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Trials with the cerviscan experimental prescreening device on polylysine-prepared slides.
    Tucker JH; Husain OA
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1981 Jun; 3(2):117-20. PubMed ID: 7020514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [An operative model: verification of the quality of the screening Pap test ].
    Montanari GR; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Campione D; Cozzani C; Parisio F; Viberti L; Ghiringhello B
    Pathologica; 2001 Oct; 93(5):609-10. PubMed ID: 11725370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory.
    Colgan TJ; Patten SF; Lee JS
    Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(6):1191-8. PubMed ID: 7483997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear: the problem of definition of errors and false-negative smears.
    Davey DD
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):267-9. PubMed ID: 9111115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology.
    Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
    Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):165-70. PubMed ID: 18454462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The cervical smear test: does timing have an effect on sample adequacy?
    Davies S
    Cytopathology; 2006 Aug; 17(4):182-6. PubMed ID: 16879265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
    Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
    Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A fast interval processor (FIP) for cervical prescreening.
    Shippey G; Bayley R; Farrow S; Lutz R; Rutovitz D
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1981 Mar; 3(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 7015947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of Papanicolaou staining and Feulgen staining for automated prescreening.
    Soost HJ; Brem W; Höbel W; Otto K; Schwarz G
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1983 Mar; 5(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 6189437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.