Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37347036›Full record

ArticleFree neuropathology2023

Survey of Neuroanatomic Sampling and Staining Procedures in Alzheimer Disease Research Center Brain Banks.

Juan C Vizcarra, Andrew F Teich, Brittany N Dugger, David A Gutman, Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center Digital Pathology Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Free neuropathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Neuropathology in a diverse cohort of oldest-old: The LifeAfter90 study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Alzheimer's disease in theFree neuropathology · 2026
    Article
  5. Digital neuropathology of neurodegenerative disorders: Foundations, research advances, and future directions.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  6. Celebrating neuropathology's contributions to Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors.

Juan C VizcarraDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Emory University & Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
Andrew F TeichDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Department of Neurology, The Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Brittany N DuggerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
David A GutmanDepartment of Neuropathology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center Digital Pathology Working Group

Funding

UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG072972 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Charles DeCarli, Rachel A Whitmer · 2021 to 2026
$25.2M
The Neuropathologic Landscape of Alzheimer's Disease in Hispanic DecedentsR01AG062517 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Brittany Nicole Dugger · 2019 to 2026
$10.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072972NIA NIH HHS R01 AG062517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The collection of post-mortem brain tissue has been a core function of the Alzheimer Disease Research Center's (ADRCs) network located within the United States since its inception. Individual brain banks and centers follow detailed protocols to record, store, and manage complex datasets that include clinical data, demographics, and when post-mortem tissue is available, a detailed neuropathological assessment. Since each institution often has specific research foci, there can be variability in tissue collection and processing workflows. While published guidelines exist for select diseases, such as those put forth by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer Association (NIA-AA), it is of importance to denote the current practices across institutions. To this end a survey was developed and sent to United States based brain bank leaders, collecting data on brain region sampling, including anatomic landmarks used, staining (including antibodies used), as well as whole-slide-image scanning hardware. We distributed this survey to 40 brain banks and obtained a response rate of 95% (38 / 40). Most brain banks followed guidelines defined by the NIA-AA, having H&E staining in all recommended regions and targeted region-based amyloid beta, tau, and alpha-synuclein immunohistochemical staining. However, sampling consistency varied related to key anatomic landmarks/locations in select regions, such as the striatum, periventricular white matter, and parietal cortex. This study highlights the diversity and similarities amongst brain banks and discusses considerations when amalgamating data/samples across multiple centers. This survey aids in establishing benchmarks to enhance dialogues on divergent workflows in a feasible way.

Indexed as

ADRCsBiobankBrain BanksNeuropathologyTissue Repository

Identifiers

PMID37347036
PMCPMC10280272

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.