The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I
Abstract
Immunohistochemistry is no longer a technique used only for research but is employed increasingly for diagnosis and for the assessment of therapeutic biomarkers. The latter, in particular, often require a semiquantitative evaluation of the extent of their presence. There are many factors that can affect this that relate to the method: fixation of tissue, duration and type of antigen retrieval, antibody specificity, antibody dilution and detection systems. Other complexities relate to assessment. Different scoring systems are used for either the same or different antigens. Cut‐off levels for assessing whether a tissue is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ can vary for the same antigen. Whilst there are quality assurance schemes for the methodology that have improved standards of staining, there are no similar schemes that relate to interpretation, although errors here can create as many problems. There have been improvements in automated analysis but availability is limited and it is still predominantly a research tool. In order for quantification of immunohistochemistry to be a reliable and reputable tool, there must be easy to use, reproducible, standardized protocols for assessment which are international. Improvements in automated analysis with wider applicability could lead to standardization.
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
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
CODA: quantitative 3D reconstruction of large tissues at cellular resolution
Kiemen, A. L., Braxton, A. M., Grahn, M. P., Han, K. S., Babu, J. M., Reichel, R., Jiang, A. C., Kim, B., Hsu, J., Amoa, F., et al. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01650-9 · Cited by 218
αvβ6 integrin may be a potential prognostic biomarker in interstitial lung disease
Saini, G., Porte, J., Weinreb, P. H., Violette, S. M., Wallace, W. A., McKeever, T. M., & Jenkins, G. (2015) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00210414 · Cited by 106
Huang, S.-Y., Lin, C.-W., Lin, H.-H., Yao, M., Tang, J.-L., Wu, S.-J., Chen, Y.-C., Lu, H.-Y., Hou, H.-A., Chen, C.-Y., et al. (2014) · Annals of Hematology · doi:10.1007/s00277-014-2063-7 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Walker, R. A.
- Venue
- Histopathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-15
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 406-410
- ISSN
- 0309-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2559
- OpenAlex
- W2064095640
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.84
- 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 I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02514.x
- The paper
- Walker, R. A. (2006). Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02514.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.