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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9206764)

  • 21. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for prescreening triage of cervicovaginal smears.
    Ashfaq R; Saliger F; Solares B; Thomas S; Liu G; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(4):1058-64. PubMed ID: 9250299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
    Djemli A; Khetani K; Auger M
    Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16302251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Weekly rescreening of 10% of the total cervical Papanicolaou smears: a worthwhile quality assurance scheme.
    Sampatanukul P; Wannakrairot P; Promprakob U; Yodavudh S; Anansiriprapa C
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2004 Sep; 87 Suppl 2():S261-5. PubMed ID: 16083199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Reducing the error rate in Papanicolaou smears. One laboratory's experience with the PAPNET system.
    Koss LG
    Physician Assist; 1994 Dec; 18(12):48-52. PubMed ID: 10139375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3/carcinoma. Reevaluation with the PAPNET Testing System.
    Doornewaard H; van de Seijp H; Woudt JM; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):74-8. PubMed ID: 9022729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Papanicolau smears: reducing the false negative rate by improving the method].
    Biran G; Levy T
    Harefuah; 2004 Mar; 143(3):217-21, 245. PubMed ID: 15065363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. PAPNET computer-aided rescreening for detection of benign and malignant glandular elements in cervicovaginal smears: a review of 61 cases.
    Sturgis CD; Isoe C; McNeal NE; Yu GH; DeFrias DV
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Apr; 18(4):307-11. PubMed ID: 9557269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The effectiveness of cytological rescreening in the reduction of false negative/positive Pap reports.
    Cernescu EC; Anton G; Ruţă S; Cernescu C
    Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol; 2013; 72(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 24187808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system.
    Abulafia O; Sherer DM
    Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1999 Apr; 54(4):253-64. PubMed ID: 10198930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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