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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8725131)

  • 21. Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening.
    Bergeron C; Masseroli M; Ghezi A; Lemarie A; Mango L; Koss LG
    Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(2):151-7. PubMed ID: 10740599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
    Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology.
    Linder J; Zahniser D
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1998 Feb; 122(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 9499356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System.
    Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):79-81. PubMed ID: 9022730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. [False negative Pap smears in a Danish material].
    Ejersbo D; Dahl MB; Hølund B
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Jun; 165(23):2391-4. PubMed ID: 12840998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme.
    Tavares SB; de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
    Cytopathology; 2008 Aug; 19(4):254-9. PubMed ID: 18476988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System).
    Koss LG; Sherman ME; Cohen MB; Anes AR; Darragh TM; Lemos LB; McClellan BJ; Rosenthal DL; Keyhani-Rofagha S; Schreiber K; Valente PT
    Hum Pathol; 1997 Oct; 28(10):1196-203. PubMed ID: 9343327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening.
    Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
    Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 10588350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Evaluation of the PAPNET system in a general pathology service.
    Farnsworth A; Chambers FM; Goldschmidt CS
    Med J Aust; 1996 Oct; 165(8):429-31. PubMed ID: 8913244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure.
    Manrique EJ; Amaral RG; Souza NL; Tavares SB; Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC
    Cytopathology; 2006 Jun; 17(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 16719853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
    Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
    Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Computer-assisted rescreening of cervicovaginal smears stained by the Papanicolaou method. Evaluation of the PAPNET system apropos of 225 cases].
    Vuong PN; Vacher-Lavenu MC; Marsan C; Baviera E
    Arch Anat Cytol Pathol; 1995; 43(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 7574913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
    Mango LJ; Valente PT
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessment of cytologic follow-up as the recommended management for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.
    Alanen KW; Elit LM; Molinaro PA; McLachlin CM
    Cancer; 1998 Feb; 84(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 9500646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. PAPNET-directed rescreening of cervicovaginal smears: a study of 101 cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
    Ryan MR; Stastny JF; Remmers R; Pedigo MA; Cahill LA; Frable WJ
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1996 Jun; 105(6):711-8. PubMed ID: 8659445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.