Wied GL, Bartels PH, Bibbo M.
et al. Computer-assisted quality assurance. Acta Cytol.1996;40:1-3.
Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA.
et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC System for cervical cytologic abnormalities:
biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol.1996;40:127-132.
Patten Jr SF, Lee JS, Nelson AC. NeoPath, Inc. NeoPath AutoPap 300 Automatic Pap Screener System. Acta Cytol.1996;40:45-52.
Mango LJ. The FDA review process: obtaining premarket approval for the PAPNET
testing system. Acta Cytol.1996;40:138-140.
Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol.1995;13:31-36.
Boon ME, Kok LP, Nygaard-Nielsen M, Holm K, Holund B. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease
in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of
63 false-negative smears. Mod Pathol.1994;7:957-961.
Boon ME, Kok LP. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip
through human screening of Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol.1993;9:411-416.
Husain OA, Butler EB, Nayagam M, Mango L, Alonzo A. An analysis of the variation of human interpretation: Papnet a mini-challenge. Anal Cell Pathol.1994;6:157-163.
Kok MR, Boon ME. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase
in diagnostic consistency and positive scores. Cancer.1996;78:112-117.
Koss LG, Lin E, Schreiber K, Elgert P, Mango L. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control
of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol.1994;101:220-229.
Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Boon ME, Beck S. Computer-assisted primary screening of cervical smears using the PAPNET
Ryan MR, Stastny JF, Remmers R, Pedigo MA, Cahill LA, Frable WJ. PAPNET-directed rescreening of cervicovaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol.1996;105:711-718.
Sherman ME, Mango LJ, Kelly D.
et al. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis
of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma. Mod Pathol.1994;7:578-581.
Slagel DD, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. Efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening. Diagn Cytopathol.1995;13:26-30.
Vuong PN, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Marsan C, Baviera E. Computer-assisted rescreening of cervicovaginal smears stained by the
Papanicolaou method. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol.1995;43:147-153.
Rosenthal DL, Acosta D, Peters RK. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false-negative
cervical smears using the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol.1996;40:120-126.
Kaminsky FC, Burke RJ, Haberle KR, Mullins DL. An economic model for comparing alternative policies for cervical cytologic
smear screening. Acta Cytol.1995;39:232-238.
Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol.1996;40:4-8.
Boon ME. Assessing costs and benefits of PAPNET. Acta Cytol.1996;40:1109-1111.
Council on Scientific Affairs. Quality assurance in cervical cytology. JAMA.1989;262:1672-1679.
Crane M. Third parties keep on chopping fees. Med Econ.1996;73:176-177, 181-182, 185-186.
Waugh N, Smith I, Robertson A, Reid GS, Halkerston R, Grant A. Costs and benefits of cervical screening, III. Cytopathology.1996;7:249-255.
Schwarz PJ, Fasal E, Simmons ME. 12-County program: screening of 34318 women for cervical cancer in
California, 1975-78. Public Health Rep.1981;96:547-554.
Neuhauser D, Lewicki AM. What do we gain from the sixth stool guaiac? N Engl J Med.1975;293:226-228.
Vooijs GP. Opinion poll on quality assurance and quality control. Acta CytolConducted by the Committee on Continuing Education and Quality Assurance
of the International Academy of Cytology. 1996;40:14-24.