ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2026
Assessing the Effects of a 3-Dimensional (3D) Pathology Tissue-Processing Workflow on Downstream Molecular Analyses.
Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep-learning triage of three-dimensional pathology datasets for comprehensive and efficient pathologist assessments.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Prototype-based AI triage for 3D pathology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNondestructive 3-dimensional (3D) pathology methods have emerged in recent years with the potential to enhance standard 2-dimensional histopathology by greatly increasing the amount of tissue sampled by imaging and by providing volumetric morphological context. Another key advantage is that tissues remain intact, allowing re-embedding after imaging for potential long-term storage and future histological or molecular analyses. Here, we aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of 3D pathology protocols on biomolecules-including DNA, RNA, and proteins-and their compatibility with downstream assays. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe applied a previously optimized 3D pathology protocol-involving deparaffinization, fluorescent hematoxylin and eosin-analog staining, optical clearing, and open-top light-sheet microscopy-to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer. Following the protocol, tissues were re-embedded in paraffin and compared with paired formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded controls that did not undergo 3D pathology processing. DNA and RNA were extracted and subjected to quality assessments. Amplifiability was tested by PCR and real-time reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of housekeeping genes.
resultsA slight decrease in the average yield and increased fragmentation of both DNA and RNA were observed in the 3D pathology-processed group compared with the control, but PCR amplifiability was largely preserved. Sanger sequencing of the PCR products confirmed accurate sequence determinations, whereas total RNA sequencing indicated that the global transcriptomic profile was largely unchanged. Immunohistochemistry staining of common biomarkers produced comparable signals, suggesting preservation of those proteins after the 3D pathology workflow.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate the basic feasibility of combining 3D pathology with downstream molecular analysis, justifying future work to further explore the integration of 3D pathology with diverse advanced molecular assays.
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.