The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II
Abstract
Immunohistochemistry is entering its fourth decade of use on formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tissues. Over this period the method has evolved to become a major part of the practice of diagnostic surgical pathology worldwide. From the beginning immunohistochemistry has been adapted to provide a range of markers of cell lineage and tissue type, with particular application to the diagnosis and classification of tumours. In this modality immunohistochemical methods were employed simply as ‘special stains’, the results of which were evaluated qualitatively by the pathologist, as for any other stain. More recently, attention has shifted to the demonstration of prognostic markers in tumour cells, driven by the advent of molecular biology and the discovery of numerous regulatory molecules, coupled with manufacture of the corresponding specific antibodies. Immunohistochemistry has rapidly adapted to this new use, but in so doing the demand for quantification has become paramount; it is no longer enough that the ‘stain’ is there; rather it is a question of ‘How much is there?’. This review explores the limitations of immunohistochemistry when employed in a semiquantitative mode, and explores the possibility of fulfilling the full potential of immunohistochemistry, as a true quantitative immunoassay applied in a tissue section environment.
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
Hammond, M. E. H., Hayes, D. F., Dowsett, M., Allred, D. C., Hagerty, K. L., Badve, S., Fitzgibbons, P. L., Francis, G., Goldstein, N. S., Hayes, M., et al. (2010) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/134.6.907 · Cited by 895
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
Hong, D., Kurzrock, R., Kim, Y., Woessner, R., Younes, A., Nemunaitis, J., Fowler, N., Zhou, T., Schmidt, J., Jo, M., et al. (2015) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aac5272 · Cited by 445
Liang, Y., Xu, X., Li, X., Xiong, J., Li, B., Duan, L., Wang, D., & Xia, J. (2020) · ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · doi:10.1021/acsami.0c10458 · Cited by 391
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, C. R., & Levenson, R. M.
- Venue
- Histopathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-15
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 411-424
- ISSN
- 0309-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2559
- OpenAlex
- W2020632674
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02513.x
- The paper
- Taylor, C. R., & Levenson, R. M. (2006). Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02513.x
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.