The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology - a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Histopathology has initially been and is still used to diagnose infectious, degenerative or neoplastic diseases in humans or animals. In addition to qualitative diagnoses semiquantitative scoring of a lesion`s magnitude on an ordinal scale is a commonly demanded task for histopathologists. Multiparametric, semiquantitative scoring systems for mouse models histopathology are a common approach to handle these questions and to include histopathologic information in biomedical research. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria for scoring systems were a first description of a multiparametric, semiquantiative scoring systems which comprehensibly describe an approach to evaluate morphologic lesion. A comprehensive literature search using these criteria identified 153 originally designed semiquantitative scoring systems for the analysis of morphologic changes in mouse models covering almost all organs systems and a wide variety of disease models. Of these, colitis, experimental autoimmune encephalitis, lupus nephritis and collagen induced osteoarthritis colitis were the disease models with the largest number of different scoring systems. Closer analysis of the identified scoring systems revealed a lack of a rationale for the selection of the scoring parameters or a correlation between scoring parameter value and the magnitude of the clinical symptoms in most studies. CONCLUSION: Although a decision for a particular scoring system is clearly dependent on the respective scientific question this review gives an overview on currently available systems and may therefore allow for a better choice for the respective project.
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
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Animal models of arthritis: relevance to human disease.
Bendele, A., Mccomb, J., Gould, T., Mcabee, T., Sennello, G., Chlipala, E., & Guy, M. (1999) · Toxicologic Pathology · doi:10.1177/019262339902700125 · Cited by 293
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
A diet-sensitive commensal Lactobacillus strain Mediates TLR7-dependent systemic autoimmunity
Zegarra-Ruiz, D. F., El Beidaq, A., Iñiguez, A. J., Lubrano Di Ricco, M., Manfredo Vieira, S., Ruff, W. E., Mubiru, D., Fine, R. L., Sterpka, J., Greiling, T. M., et al. (2019) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2018.11.009 · Cited by 308
Rusu, M. E., Georgiu, C., Pop, A., Mocan, A., Kiss, B., Vostinaru, O., Fizesan, I., Stefan, M.-G., Gheldiu, A.-M., Mates, L., et al. (2020) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox9050424 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Klopfleisch, R.
- Venue
- BMC Veterinary Research
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 123
- ISSN
- 1746-6148 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123471555
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology - a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1746-6148-9-123
- The paper
- Klopfleisch, R. (2013). Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology - a systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-123
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.