Such machines already exist
And have been approved by the FDA or similar licensing body In the US for checking the smears.
Boredom / human fallability is the big hurdle for existing smear screen methods
Regards
Jim
----------
From: George Myszka[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 July 1998 18:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cervical screening
In article <[log in to unmask]>, Michael Durham
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I would be fascinated to hear from anybody who can tell me why these
>screening catastrophes always seem to occur in cervical cancer
>screening.......and if there are any other areas of health which might be
>similarly prone to clinical errors/differences.
Having discussed this with a patient involved in screening the slides,
some of this may be down to the nature of the job which involves having
to look down a microscope at countless slides, one after another, all
very similar, making qualitative decisions, until they start dancing
before your eyes. The workload is heavy and enthusiasm is low.
If someone could devise a digito/optical recognition system, at least
every slide would be examined through the same criteria with ruthless
precision and undimmed enthusiasm.
Regards
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|