Article

Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, CreditValley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.88). 10/2009; 133(10):1568-76. DOI: 10.1043/1543-2165-133.10.1568
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Thomas Wheeler, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
131 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A feedback neural network model with memory connections for classification and weight connections for selection is proposed. After training, a memory vector is interpreted as a prototype of a feature pattern, and a weight vector represents importance of feature variables to the corresponding feature pattern. The proposed neural network has a simple network architecture and high learning speed. Moreover, the obtained knowledge can be described by natural language. The technique is applied to the IRIS data: the two effective feature variables were extracted, and the corresponding number of errors, is almost the same as using four feature variables
    Fuzzy Systems Proceedings, 1998. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence., The 1998 IEEE International Conference on; 06/1998
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper we present an original embedded system, named MAHARADJA, based on the association of a microcontroller and a dedicated post potential synaptic computation unit circuit. This system performs real time simulation of RBF neural network with the Mahalanobis distance with low power dissipation. We compare this system with general purpose microprocessors and with specialized and dedicated neurocomputers. We show that this system is a good paradigm compared to the other systems
    Microelectronics for Neural, Fuzzy and Bio-Inspired Systems, 1999. MicroNeuro '99. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on; 02/1999
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The information contained in pathology reports of radical prostatectomy specimens is critically important to treating physicians for the selection of adjuvant therapy, the evaluation of therapy, estimating prognosis, and analyzing outcomes. This information is also important to patients and their families. The first phase of this study consisted of a retrospective chart review of 554 cases of radical prostatectomy (ICD-9-CM procedure code of 60.5) in New York State for the second six-month period of 1996. This review focused on ten elements (quality indicators): submission of a frozen section, location of the adenocarcinoma, proportion of specimen involved by adenocarcinoma, perineural involvement, vascular involvement, seminal vesicle status, periprostate fat status, number of nodes submitted, status of nodes, and PIN (prostate intra-epithelial neoplasia). The second phase of this project consisted of an educational feedback program involving the directors of pathology laboratories in all hospitals in New York State. A post-intervention review of the medical charts of all male Medicare patients discharged from New York State acute care hospitals with the ICD-9-CM procedure code of 60.5 (radical prostatectomy) was conducted for the six-month period February 1 through July 31, 1999. A total of 304 charts were reviewed. Performance on the ten indicators in the first phase of the study varied from 14.8% (periprostate fat status) to 85.9% (seminal vesicle involvement). Performance for all hospitals was 50% for four quality indicators and less than 70% for seven. Post-intervention improvements in performance occurred with nine of the ten quality indicators. These improvements ranged from 1.4% (status of lymph nodes submitted) to 23.9% (proportion of specimen involved by adenocarcinoma). The results of this study demonstrate that the issues identified in the baseline with radical prostatectomy pathology reports were amenable to a cooperative educational intervention.
    Journal of Community Health 03/2002; 27(1):1-13. DOI:10.1023/A:1013823409165 · 1.28 Impact Factor