A neural network approach to the biopsy diagnosis of early acute renal transplant rejection

Histopathology

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 461-467

  Furness, P N ^d   Levesley, J ^a   Luo, Z ^a   Taub, N ^a   Kazi, J I ^b   Bates, W D ^c   Nicholson, M L ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b SINDH INSTITUTE OF UROLOGY AND TRANSPLANTATION   (Pakistan)

^c JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d LEICESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allograft; Banff; Biopsy; Neural network; Rejection

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; HUMAN; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY GRAFT REJECTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; PATHOLOGIST; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACUTE DISEASE; BIOPSY; EVALUATION STUDIES; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LOGISTIC MODELS; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0011270698     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.1999.035005461.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Furness PN. Advances in the diagnosis of renal transplant rejection. Curr. Diag. Pathol. 1996: 3; 81-90.
2. Hayry P, von Willebrand E. Practical guidelines for fine needle aspiration biopsy of human renal allografts. Ann. Clin. Res. 1981: 13; 288-284.
3. Kyo M, Miliatsch MJ, Gudat F, Dalquen P, Huser B, Thiel G. Renal graft rejection or cyclosporin toxicity? Early diagnosis by a combination of Papanicolaou and immunocytochemical staining of urinary cytology specimens. Transplant 1992: 5; 71-76.
4. Rush DM, Henry SF, Jeffery JR, Schroeder TJ, Gough J. Histological findings in early routine biopsies of stable renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1994: 57; 208-211.
5. Solez K, Axelsen RA, Benediktsson H et al. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int. 1993: 44; 411-422.
6. Furness P, Kirkpatrick U, Taub N, Davies D, Solez K. A UK-wide trial of the Banff classification of renal transplant pathology in routine diagnostic practice. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 1997: 12; 995-1000.
7. Kazi JI, Furness PN, Nicholson M. Diagnosis of early acute renal allograft rejection by evaluation of multiple histological features using a Bayesian belief network. J. Clin. Pathol. 1998: 51; 108-113.
8. Cross SS, Bury JP, Stephenson TJ, Harrison RF. Image analysis of low magnification images of fine needle aspirates of the breast produces useful discrimination between benign and malignant cases. Cytopathology 1997: 8; 265-273.
9. Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall. 1991: 351-358.
10. Cross SS, Harrison RF, Kennedy RL. Introduction to neural networks. Lancet 1995: 346; 1075-1079.
11. Montironi R, Whimster VYT, Collan Y, Hamilton PW, Thompson D, Bartels PH. How to develop and use a Bayesian belief network. J. Clin. Pathol. 1996: 49; 194-201.
12. Hamilton PW, Montironi R, Abmayr Wet al. Clinical replications of Bayesian belief networks in pathology. Pathologica 1995: 87; 237-245.
13. Ryan MR, Stastny JF, Remmers R, Pedigo MA, Cahill LA, Frable WL. PAPNET directed rescreening of cervicovaginal smears: a study of 101 cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1996: 105; 711-718.
14. Kok MR, Boon ME. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase in diagnostic consistency and positive scores. Cancer 1996: 78; 112-117.
15. Hunsicker LG, Bennett LE. Design of trials of methods to reduce late renal allograft loss: The price of success. Kidney Int. 1995: 48 (Suppl.); S120-S123.
16. Isoniemi H, Taskinen E, Hayry P. Histological chronic allograft damage index accurately predicts chronic renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1994: 58; 1195-1198.