126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9755670)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma.
Sherman ME; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Paull G; Ludin V; Copeland C; Solomon D; Schiffman MH
Mod Pathol; 1994 Jun; 7(5):578-81. PubMed ID: 7937724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rescreening of atypical cervicovaginal smears using PAPNET.
Lerma E; Colomo L; Carreras A; Esteva E; Quilez M; Prat J
Cancer; 1998 Dec; 84(6):361-5. PubMed ID: 9915138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. New paradigm for ASCUS diagnosis using neural networks.
Kok MR; Habers MA; Schreiner-Kok PG; Boon ME
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Nov; 19(5):361-6. PubMed ID: 9812231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Observer variation in cytologic grading for cervical dysplasia of Papanicolaou smears with the PAPNET testing system.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; van den Tweel JG
Cancer; 1999 Aug; 87(4):178-83. PubMed ID: 10455204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a comparative review of original and automated rescreen diagnosis of cervicovaginal smears with long term follow-up.
Stastny JF; Remmers RE; London WB; Pedigo MA; Cahill LA; Ryan M; Frable WJ
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 9438460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. PAPNET testing for HSILs. The few cell/small cell challenge.
Solomon HM; Frist S
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):253-9. PubMed ID: 9479348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. ASCUS on cervical cytologic smears. Clinical significance.
Yang M; Zachariah S
J Reprod Med; 1997 Jun; 42(6):329-31. PubMed ID: 9219118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. [An interlaboratory study of the use of PapNet in the quality control of cervico-vaginal cytology].
Cosentino A; Ghidoni D; Salemi M; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Zani J; Grasso G; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1999 Apr; 91(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 10484869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
