Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21584771›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical systems2012

Image analysis tools for evaluation of microscopic views of immunohistochemically stained specimen in medical research-a review.

Keerthana Prasad, Gopalakrishna K Prabhu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical systems, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Upregulation of Antioxidative Gene Expression byAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Aberrant mucosal immunoreaction to tonsillar microbiota in immunoglobulin A nephropathy.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Principles and approaches for reproducible scoring of tissue stains in research.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Keerthana PrasadManipal Centre for Information Science, Manipal University, Manipal, India. keerthana.prasad@manipal.edu
Gopalakrishna K Prabhu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to review the methods being used for image analysis of microscopic views of immunohistochemically stained specimen in medical research. The solutions available range from general purpose software to commercial packages. Many studies have developed their own custom written programs based on some general purpose software available. Many groups have reported development of computer aided image analysis programs aiming at obtaining faster, simpler and cheaper solutions. Image analysis tools namely Aperio, Lucia, Metaview, Metamorph, ImageJ, Scion, Adobe Photoshop, Image Pro Plus are also used for evaluation of expressions using immunohistochemical staining. An overview of such methods used for image analysis is provided in this paper. This study concludes that there is good scope for development of freely available software for staining intensity quantification, which a medical researcher could easily use without requiring high level computer skills.

Indexed as

ImmunohistochemistryMicroscopyStaining and LabelingBiomedical ResearchColorImage Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.