Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,771

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The OARSI histopathology initiative – recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the guinea pig

Open access
Kraus, V.B., Huebner, J.L., DeGroot, J., Bendele, A.·2010·Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Abstract

Objective This review focuses on the criteria for assessing osteoarthritis (OA) in the guinea pig at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, and recommends particular assessment criteria to assist standardization in the conduct and reporting of preclinical trails in guinea pig models of OA. Methods A review was conducted of all OA studies from 1958 until the present that utilized the guinea pig. The PubMed database was originally searched August 1, 2006 using the following search terms: guinea pig and osteoarthritis. We continued to check the database periodically throughout the process of preparing this chapter and the final search was conducted January 7, 2009. Additional studies were found in a review of abstracts from the OsteoArthritis Research Society International (OARSI) conferences, Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) conferences, and literature related to histology in other preclinical models of OA reviewed for relevant references. Studies that described or used systems for guinea pig joint scoring on a macroscopic, microscopic, or ultrastructural basis were included in the final comprehensive summary and review. General recommendations regarding methods of OA assessment in the guinea pig were derived on the basis of a comparison across studies and an inter-rater reliability assessment of the recommended scoring system. Results A histochemical-histological scoring system (based on one first introduced by H. Mankin) is recommended for semi-quantitative histological assessment of OA in the guinea pig, due to its already widespread adoption, ease of use, similarity to scoring systems used for OA in humans, its achievable high inter-rater reliability, and its demonstrated correlation with synovial fluid biomarker concentrations. Specific recommendations are also provided for histological scoring of synovitis and scoring of macroscopic lesions of OA. Conclusions As summarized herein, a wealth of tools exist to aid both in the semi-quantitative and quantitative assessment of OA in the guinea pig and provide a means of comprehensively characterizing the whole joint organ. In an ongoing effort at standardization, we recommend specific criteria for assessing the guinea pig model of OA as part of an OARSI initiative, termed herein the OARSI-HISTOgp recommendations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.015

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 139 references

Cited by

See all 1,771

Metadata

Authors
Kraus, V. B., Huebner, J. L., DeGroot, J., & Bendele, A.
Venue
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
18
Pages
S35-S52
ISSN
1063-4584 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058435889
Cited by
1,771
References
139
FWCI
30.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The OARSI histopathology initiative – recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the guinea pig. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.015
The paper
Kraus, V. B., Huebner, J. L., DeGroot, J., & Bendele, A. (2010). The OARSI histopathology initiative – recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the guinea pig. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.