New paradigm for ASCUS diagnosis using neural networks

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 361-366

  Kok, M R ^a   Habers, M A ^b   Schreiner Kok, P G ^a   Boon, M E ^a  

^a LEIDEN CYTOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY LABORATORY   (Netherlands)

^b SLOTERVAART HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

ASCUS; Atypical squamous cells; Cervical cytopathology; Neural networks; PAPNET

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CERVIX UTERI; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0031793444     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199811)19:5<361::AID-DC10>3.0.CO;2-9     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical-vaginal cytologic diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
2. Ryan MR, Stastny JF, Remmers R, Pedigo MA, Cahill LA, Frable WJ. 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.
3. Sidawy MK, Tabbers SO. Reactive change and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in Papanicolaou smears: a cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:423-427.
4. Robb JA. The ""ASCUS" Swamp. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;4:319-320.
5. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;4:390-396.
6. Williams ML, Rimm DL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow-up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16: 1-7.
7. Grauw M, de Berg JWM, van den Dormans-Visscher A, et al. Wat laat de follow-up van een Pap 2 zien? Een verkennend onderzoek. Histotechniek/Cyto-Visie 1996;5:21-25 (in Dutch).
8. Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Boon ME, Beck S. Computer-assisted primary screening of cervical smears using the PAPNET method: comparison with conventional screening and evaluation of the role of the cytologist. Cytopathology 1994;5:211-218.
9. Year reports of the Leiden Cytology and Pathology Laboratory 1980-1997. Leiden (The Netherlands), Coulomb Press Ley den (in Dutch).
10. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Report of a Working Party set up by the Royal College of pathologists, the British Society for Clinical Cytology and the NHS Cervical Screening Program. Cytopathology 1995;6(Suppl 2):1-32.
11. Boon ME, Kok LP, Beck S. Histologic validation of neural network-assisted cervical screening: comparison with the conventional procedure. Cell Vision 1995;2:23-27.
12. Kok MR, Boon ME. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase of diagnostic consistency and increase of positive scores. Cancer 1996;78:112-117.
13. Boon ME, Kok LP. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip through human screening of Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;4:411-416.
14. Rosenthal DL, Mango LJ, Acosta DA, Peters RD. ""Negative" Pap smears preceding carcinoma of the cervix: rescreening with the PAPNET system. Am J Clin Pathol 1993;100:331.
15. De May RM. The art and science of cytopathology. ASCP 1996;94-97.
16. Boon ME, Dunne MF, van Vardaxis NJ. Recognition of atypical cell hyperplasia in cervical smears and its diagnostic significance. Mod Pathol 1995;8:786-794.