The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Nonneoplastic Lesions in Toxicology Studies
Open accessAbstract
A pathology report is written to convey information concerning the pathologic findings in a study. This type of report must be complete, accurate and communicate the relative importance of various findings in a study. The overall quality of the report is determined by three Quality Indicators: thoroughness, accuracy, and consistency. Thoroughness is the identification of every lesion present in a particular organ or tissue, including spontaneous background lesions. Experienced pathologists familiar with background lesions may disregard certain types of lesions or establish a threshold or a severity above which background lesions are diagnosed. Accuracy is the ability to make, and precisely communicate, correct diagnoses. Nomenclature of lesions is a matter of definition and experienced pathologists generally agree as to what terms are to be used. Consistency is the uniform use of a specific term to record a defined lesion and implies that the same diagnostic criteria are being followed for each type of diagnosis. The relative severity of nonneoplastic lesions can be recorded either semiquantitatively or quantitatively. Semiquantitative analysis involves the application of defined severity grades or ranges for specific lesions. Quantitative analysis (counts and measurements) can be performed manually or electronically, utilizing image analysis and stereological techniques to provide numerical values. When both qualitative and quantitative parameters are applied in preparation of a pathology report, the recorded pathology findings can be interpreted and put into perspective. The use of this approach assures a reader that the pathology report meets the highest standards.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Immunohistochemistry for Pathologists: Protocols, Pitfalls, and Tips
Kim, S.-W., Roh, J., & Park, C.-S. (2016) · Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine · doi:10.4132/jptm.2016.08.08 · Cited by 499
Principles and approaches for reproducible scoring of tissue stains in research
Meyerholz, D. K., & Beck, A. P. (2018) · Laboratory Investigation · doi:10.1038/s41374-018-0057-0 · Cited by 341
Mann, P. C., Vahle, J., Keenan, C. M., Baker, J. F., Bradley, A. E., Goodman, D. G., Harada, T., Herbert, R., Kaufmann, W., Kellner, R., et al. (2012) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1177/0192623312438738 · Cited by 241
Self-citationUse of Severity Grades to Characterize Histopathologic Changes
Schafer, K. A., Eighmy, J., Fikes, J. D., Halpern, W. G., Hukkanen, R. R., Long, G. G., Meseck, E. K., Patrick, D. J., Thibodeau, M. S., Wood, C. E., et al. (2018) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1177/0192623318761348 · Cited by 230
Self-citationChen, H.-L., Tung, Y.-T., Chuang, C.-H., Tu, M.-Y., Tsai, T.-C., Chang, S.-Y., & Chen, C.-M. (2015) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2908-x · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Shackelford, C., Long, G., Wolf, J., Okerberg, C., & Herbert, R.
- Venue
- Toxicologic Pathology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-96
- ISSN
- 0192-6233 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-1601
- OpenAlex
- W2104592429
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.51
- 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: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Nonneoplastic Lesions in Toxicology Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01926230252824761
- The paper
- Shackelford, C., Long, G., Wolf, J., Okerberg, C., & Herbert, R. (2002). Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Nonneoplastic Lesions in Toxicology Studies. Toxicologic Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926230252824761
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.