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)

  • 41. Evaluation of PAPNET-assisted cervical rescreening.
    Doornewaard H; Woudt JM; Strubbe P; van de Seijp H; van den Tweel JG
    Cytopathology; 1997 Oct; 8(5):313-21. PubMed ID: 9313983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
    Wertlake P
    J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Simulation of primary cervical cancer screening by the PAPNET system in an unscreened, high-risk community.
    Michelow PM; Hlongwane NF; Leiman G
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 9022732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. An analysis of the variation of human interpretation: Papnet a mini-challenge.
    Husain OA; Butler EB; Nayagam M; Mango L; Alonzo A
    Anal Cell Pathol; 1994 Feb; 6(2):157-63. PubMed ID: 8167098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Rescreen effect in conventional and PAPNET screening: observed in a study using material enriched with positive smears.
    van Ballegooijen M; Beck S; Boon ME; Boer R; Habbema JD
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(5):1133-8. PubMed ID: 9755670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [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]  

  • 49. Detection of endocervical component by PAPNET system on negative cervical smears.
    Ashfaq R; Solares B; Saboorian MH
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Aug; 15(2):121-3. PubMed ID: 8872433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears.
    Klinkhamer PJ; Vooijs GP; de Haan AF
    Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(6):794-800. PubMed ID: 3201873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. [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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
    Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
    Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Potentially difficult smears of women with squamous cell carcinoma pose fewer problems when PAPNET is used for primary screening.
    Kok MR; Schreiner-Kok PG; Van Der Veen G; Boon ME
    Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):324-34. PubMed ID: 10588351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases.
    Renshaw AA
    Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):264-71. PubMed ID: 9349512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. PAPNET Testing System. Technical update.
    Denaro TJ; Herriman JM; Shapira O
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 9022728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Consistency of a double PAPNET scan of cervical smears.
    Jenny J; Isenegger I; Boon ME; Husain OA
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):82-7. PubMed ID: 9022731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Computer-assisted cervical cancer screening using neural networks.
    Mango LJ
    Cancer Lett; 1994 Mar; 77(2-3):155-62. PubMed ID: 8168062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening.
    Amaral RG; Zeferino LC; Hardy E; Westin MC; Martinez EZ; Montemor EB
    Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 15966284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Usefulness of cervical collection by the exact touch, the saccomanno single sampler, combined with automated primary screening.
    Cenci M; Vecchione A
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Oct; 23(4):242-4. PubMed ID: 11002364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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