ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Plasma Cell Counting Methodology Determines Chronic Endometritis Prevalence.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Histopathological assessment of plasma cells (PCs) via CD138 immunohistochemistry, the diagnostic gold standard for chronic endometritis (CE), is methodologically heterogeneous. Does reported variation in CE prevalence reflect underlying pathobiology, or is it primarily an artifact of counting methodology? We quantified how HPF selection strategy, field count, and magnification influence observed prevalence. Methods: We retrospectively studied 886 treatment-naïve patients suspected of CE. CD138-stained biopsies were digitized; a three-pathologist consensus reference validated an AI pipeline for PC detection. Four counting methods were applied across two magnifications (200× vs. 400×) and multiple thresholds. Results: Inter-observer reliability was higher for digital (ICC = 0.99) than microscopy-based assessment (ICC = 0.73). The AI pipeline (F1: 0.89-0.97) outperformed manual microscopy (F1: 0.67-0.89) and matched digital assessment (F1: 0.81-1.00). At a fixed threshold and field count (≥ 5 PCs, ×400, 10 HPFs), field-selection strategy alone shifted prevalence from 3.1% (Random Sampling) to 69.5% (Independent Hotspot), Conclusions: Diagnostic threshold alone does not fully specify a CE criterion; field-selection strategy, field count, and magnification must also be reported for prevalence estimates to be comparable. Hotspot-based and AI-assisted counting are recommended over random field selection for reproducibility and sensitivity.
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.