Cited by 85

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of the histopathological key features in autoimmune hepatitis

de Boer, Ynto S, van Nieuwkerk, Carin M J, Witte, Birgit I, Mulder, Chris J J, Bouma, Gerd, Bloemena, Elisabeth·2015·Histopathology

Abstract

Aims: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the use of typical histological features of both the revised original (1999) and simplified (2008) criteria in the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) in clinical practice. Methods and results: We performed a detailed histopathological evaluation of the pretreatment biopsies of 63 AIH patients, and used biopsies of 62 untreated chronic viral hepatitis patients [hepatitis B (n = 21) or hepatitis C (n = 41)] as a reference cohort. Biopsies were systematically reviewed for inflammation, fibrosis and the presence of interface hepatitis, plasma cells, rosettes and emperipolesis with a well‐defined assessment method. AIH biopsies showed more interface hepatitis (87% versus 63%, P = 0.002), more plasma cell‐rich infiltrates (48% versus 27%, P = 0.02), more rosettes (49% versus 23%, P = 0.004) and more emperipolesis (78% versus 50%, P = 0.001) than chronic viral hepatitis biopsies. Emperipolesis (P = 0.01) and rosettes (P < 0.01) were superior to plasma cells and interface hepatitis as independent predictors for AIH. Moderate to severe lymphocytic cholangitis was found in 28% of AIH patients. Conclusions: Emperipolesis and rosette formation are superior histological predictors of AIH than the classic hallmark features of interface hepatitis and plasma cells. In addition, moderate to severe lymphocytic cholangitis does not preclude the diagnosis of AIH.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/his.12558

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1016/j.jaut.2009.08.010 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0168-8278(99)80297-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1097/00001574-200205000-00007 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/hep.22322 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1002/hep.22513 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.dld.2009.06.013 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/hep.22825 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/hep.1840150403 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0016-5085(93)91081-R · DOI
  10. 10.1080/00365529850166284 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/0168-8278(91)90084-O · DOI
  12. 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32835a68a1 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.06.032 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/hep.24481 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Rubio CA, 2013, A method to assess the distribution and frequency of plasma cells and plasma cell precursors in autoimmune hepatitis, Anticancer Res., 33, 665
  16. 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.09.002 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2008.00366.x · DOI
  18. 10.1002/hep.1840190629 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/BF02235164 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
de Boer, Y. S., van Nieuwkerk, C. M. J., Witte, B. I., Mulder, C. J. J., Bouma, G., & Bloemena, E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Department of Pathology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands
Venue
Histopathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-22
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
351-362
ISSN
  • 0309-0167
  • 1365-2559
Cited by
85
References
1
Language
en
Funders
Dutch Digestive Diseases Foundation (WO 11-58)

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