ArticleVeterinary pathology2026
Effects of fixation and demineralization on immunohistochemical assessment of canine bone marrow.
Article in Veterinary pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different fixatives and demineralizers on immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of antigens in bone marrow (BM). Sternal BM samples were collected within 24 hours of death from dogs with spontaneous disease, fixed with acetic acid-zinc-formalin (AZF) or 10% neutral-buffered formalin (NBF) for 24 hours, and decalcified with formic acid, hydrochloric acid, or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for 1, 12, or 24 hours, respectively. Immunohistochemical sections for CD3, CD20, CD34, CD204, FLT3, and factor VIII-related antigen (FVIII-rAG) were scored for background, signal intensity, and percent positive cells by 4 independent raters. Some endothelial but not hematopoietic cells were CD34 immunopositive, precluding further assessment. Immunopositive BM cells ranged from 1.3% to 18.3% (CD3), 1.3% to 22.3% (CD20), 0.5% to 22.5% (CD204), and 0% to 17.6% (FLT3). Background scores were similar for all antigens and fixatives except for CD3, for which NBF yielded lower scores than AZF. The signal intensity for all IHC assays was similar for AZF and NBF. The percentage of FLT3- and FVIII-rAG-immunopositive cells was slightly higher in AZF- than NBF-fixed samples. Different demineralizers yielded similar results for all IHC assays except higher background for CD20/EDTA. Signal intensity was higher for CD204 in samples demineralized with EDTA rather than acids. Higher percentages of CD204 and FLT3 immunopositive cells were noted with EDTA relative to acid demineralization. Overall, with the use of stringently standardized pre-analytic and processing protocols, all IHC assays yielded acceptable results, and differences between protocols were considered minor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.