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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7892166)

  • 1. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of 63 false-negative smears.
    Boon ME; Kok LP; Nygaard-Nielsen M; Holm K; Holund B
    Mod Pathol; 1994 Dec; 7(9):957-61. PubMed ID: 7892166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [The PAPNET system in cytological rescreening of cervical smears].
    Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
    Minerva Ginecol; 1997 Apr; 49(4):139-45. PubMed ID: 9206764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
    Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
    Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automated screening for quality control using PAPNET: a study of 638 negative Pap smears.
    Keyhani-Rofagha S; Palma T; O'Toole RV
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Jun; 14(4):316-20. PubMed ID: 8725131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. PAPNET-assisted primary screening of conventional cervical smears.
    Cenci M; Nagar C; Vecchione A
    Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(5C):3887-9. PubMed ID: 11268471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The PAPNET system in the rescreening of negative cervical/vaginal smears. A study from the Imola cytology laboratory].
    Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
    Pathologica; 1998 Aug; 90(4):357-63. PubMed ID: 9793395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Evaluation of PAPNET--a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer].
    Hølund B; Ejersbo D; Hjortebjerg A
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5802-6. PubMed ID: 9782761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase in diagnostic consistency and positive scores.
    Kok MR; Boon ME
    Cancer; 1996 Jul; 78(1):112-7. PubMed ID: 8646706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: validation and limits.
    Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
    Anticancer Res; 1997; 17(6D):4731-4. PubMed ID: 9494597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip through human screening of pap smears.
    Boon ME; Kok LP
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1993 Aug; 9(4):411-6. PubMed ID: 8261846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
    Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
    Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Computer-assisted primary screening of cervical smears using the PAPNET method: comparison with conventional screening and evaluation of the role of the cytologist.
    Ouwerkerk-Noordam E; Boon ME; Beck S
    Cytopathology; 1994 Aug; 5(4):211-8. PubMed ID: 7948757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System.
    Rosenthal DL; Acosta D; Peters RK
    Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):120-6. PubMed ID: 8604564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year.
    Nieminen P; Hakama M; Viikki M; Tarkkanen J; Anttila A
    Int J Cancer; 2003 Jan; 103(3):422-6. PubMed ID: 12471627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Automation of cytological analysis of cervical smears].
    Cenci M; Giovagnoli MR; Olla SV; Drusco A; Vecchione A
    Minerva Ginecol; 1999; 51(7-8):291-8. PubMed ID: 10536424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. PAPNET for cervical cytology screening. Experience in Greece.
    Veneti S; Papaefthimiou M; Symiakaki H; Ioannidou-Mouzaka L
    Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 9987447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
    Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
    Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. PRISMATIC Project Management Team.
    Lancet; 1999 Apr; 353(9162):1381-5. PubMed ID: 10227217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.