126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9755670)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. The ASCUS : SIL ratio and the reference laboratory pathologist.
Wachtel MS; Dahm PF
Cytopathology; 2003 Oct; 14(5):249-56. PubMed ID: 14510888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative cervical smears.
Ashfaq R; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Jul; 13(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7587873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Determination of features indicating progression in atypical squamous cells with undetermined significance: human papillomavirus typing and DNA ploidy analysis from liquid-based cytologic samples.
Bollmann R; Méhes G; Torka R; Speich N; Schmitt C; Bollmann M
Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 12704691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Evaluation of cytological screening for cancers and precancerous lesions of the cervix].
Boman F; Duhamel A; Trinh QD; Deken V; Leroy JL; Beuscart R
Bull Cancer; 2003 Jul; 90(7):643-7. PubMed ID: 12957806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. Risk of precancer and follow-up management strategies for women with human papillomavirus-negative atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
Safaeian M; Solomon D; Wacholder S; Schiffman M; Castle P
Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Jun; 109(6):1325-31. PubMed ID: 17540804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population.
Cheung AN; Szeto EF; Leung BS; Khoo US; Ng AW
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):331-5. PubMed ID: 14681939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Accuracy comparison between PAPNET diagnoses and conventional diagnoses in an Italian cervical cytology laboratory.
Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Oct; 19(4):279-83. PubMed ID: 9784992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Oral contraceptive pills are associated with artifacts in ThinPrep Pap smears that mimic low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.
Morrison C; Prokorym P; Piquero C; Wakely PE; Nuovo GJ
Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 12704686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Detection of unsuspected abnormalities by PAPNET-assisted review.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):260-4. PubMed ID: 9479349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. [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]
40. Comparison of Papnet-assisted and manual screening of cervical smears.
Losell K; Dejmek A
Diagn Cytopathol; 1999 Oct; 21(4):296-9. PubMed ID: 10495327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
