International Variation in Histologic Grading Is Large, and Persistent Feedback Does Not Improve Reproducibility
暂无分享,去创建一个
Timo Paavonen | N. Taub | N. Marcussen | T. Paavonen | D. Serón | R. Waldherr | P. Furness | C. Hill | E. Taskinen | G. Banfi | Niels Marcussen | H. Regele | J. Cosyns | Peter N Furness | Nicholas Taub | Karel J M Assmann | Giovanni Banfi | Jean-Pierre Cosyns | Anthony M Dorman | Claire M Hill | Silke K Kapper | Rudiger Waldherr | Aryvdas Laurinavicius | Anna Paula Martins | Malfada Nogueira | Heinz Regele | Daniel Seron | Marta Carrera | Ståle Sund | Eero I Taskinen | Tatjana Tihomirova | Rafail Rosenthal | M. Carrera | R. Rosenthal | K. Assmann | A. Dorman | S. Kapper | S. Sund | T. Tihomirova | Aryvdas Laurinavicius | Anna Paula Martins | Malfada Nogueira
[1] N. Marcussen,et al. Reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Inter- and intraobserver variation. , 1995, Transplantation.
[2] H. E. Hansen,et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. , 1999, Kidney international.
[3] Deborah B. Thompson,et al. An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) , 2000, The Journal of pathology.
[4] J W Arends,et al. Efforts to improve interobserver agreement in histopathological grading. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[5] S S Cross,et al. Proactive management of histopathology workloads: analysis of the UK Royal College of Pathologists’ recommendations on specimens of limited or no clinical value on the workload of a teaching hospital gastrointestinal pathology service , 2002, Journal of clinical pathology.
[6] H. E. Hansen,et al. Clinical validation and reproducibility of the Banff schema for renal allograft pathology. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.
[7] N. Dallimore,et al. Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast , 2000, Journal of clinical pathology.
[8] B. Everitt,et al. Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .
[9] S S Cross,et al. Observer accuracy in estimating proportions in images: implications for the semiquantitative assessment of staining reactions and a proposal for a new system , 2001, Journal of clinical pathology.
[10] J A Morris,et al. Information and observer disagreement in histopathology , 1994, Histopathology.
[11] E. B. Butler,et al. PAPNET. The human and other dimensions. , 1997, Acta cytologica.
[12] Offline telepathology diagnosis of colorectal polyps: a study of interobserver agreement and comparison with glass slide diagnoses. , 2002, Journal of clinical pathology.
[13] H. Tsuda,et al. A quantitative model using mean and standard deviation for evaluation of interobserver agreement in nuclear atypia scoring of breast carcinomas in a protocol study , 2000, Pathology international.
[14] P. Nickerson,et al. Reproducibility of the Banff schema in reporting protocol biopsies of stable renal allografts. , 2002, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.
[15] J. Gentle,et al. Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. , 1990 .
[16] N Taub,et al. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project. , 2001, Kidney international.