ArticleLab animal2017
Reproducibility of histopathological findings in experimental pathology of the mouse: a sorry tail.
Article in Lab animal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria (INHAND): Non-proliferative and proliferative lesions of fish - Chapter 1. Introduction.Journal of toxicologic pathology · 2026Article
- [Centers for experimental animal pathology still occupy a small but valuable niche in translational medicine-time for change?]Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- [Comparative pathology in oncology-Best practice].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Comparisons of quantitative approaches for assessing microglial morphology reveal inconsistencies, ecological fallacy, and a need for standardization.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Developing image analysis methods for digital pathology.The Journal of pathology · 2022Review
- Development of Planar Illumination Strategies for Solving Mysteries in the Sub-Cellular Realm.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Research-Relevant Conditions and Pathology of Laboratory Mice, Rats, Gerbils, Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, Naked Mole Rats, and Rabbits.ILAR journal · 2021Review
- Correlation of in vivo imaging to morphomolecular pathology in translational research: challenge accepted.EJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Extensive Histopathological Characterization of Inflamed Bowel in the Dextran Sulfate Sodium Mouse Model with Emphasis on Clinically Relevant Biomarkers and Targets for Drug Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- In Vivo Tumorigenesis, Osteolytic Sarcomas, and Tumorigenic Cell Lines from Transgenic Mice Expressing the Human T-Lymphotropic Virus Type 1 (HTLV-1) Tax Viral Oncogene.The American journal of pathology · 2021Article
- Article
- Cholinergic and inflammatory phenotypes in transgenic tau mouse models of Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration.Brain communications · 2020Article
- Histopathologic Evaluation and Scoring of Viral Lung Infection.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2020Review
- Utility of In Vitro Bioactivity as a Lower Bound Estimate of In Vivo Adverse Effect Levels and in Risk-Based Prioritization.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2020Article
- ToxRefDB version 2.0: Improved utility for predictive and retrospective toxicology analyses.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- [Histopathological research laboratories in translational research : Conception and integration into the infrastructure of pathological institutes].Der Pathologe · 2019Article
- Fundamental Concepts for Semiquantitative Tissue Scoring in Translational Research.ILAR journal · 2018Article
- Pathology Principles and Practices for Analysis of Animal Models.ILAR journal · 2018Article
- Replication Study: Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota.eLife · 2018Article
- Identification of genes required for eye development by high-throughput screening of mouse knockouts.Communications biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reproducibility of in vivo research using the mouse as a model organism depends on many factors, including experimental design, strain or stock, experimental protocols, and methods of data evaluation. Gross and histopathology are often the endpoints of such research and there is increasing concern about the accuracy and reproducibility of diagnoses in the literature. To reproduce histopathological results, the pathology protocol, including necropsy methods and slide preparation, should be followed by interpretation of the slides by a pathologist familiar with reading mouse slides and familiar with the consensus medical nomenclature used in mouse pathology. Likewise, it is important that pathologists are consulted as reviewers of manuscripts where histopathology is a key part of the investigation. The absence of pathology expertise in planning, executing and reviewing in vivo research using mice leads to questionable pathology-based findings and conclusions from studies, even in high-impact journals. We discuss the various aspects of this problem, give some examples from the literature and suggest solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.