| Title |
Proposals for best-quality immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded brain tissue slides in forensics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-017-1767-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Florian Trautz, Jan Dreßler, Ruth Stassart, Wolf Müller, Benjamin Ondruschka |
| Abstract |
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become an integral part in forensic histopathology over the last decades. However, the underlying methods for IHC vary greatly depending on the institution, creating a lack of comparability. The aim of this study was to assess the optimal approach for different technical aspects of IHC, in order to improve and standardize this procedure. Therefore, qualitative results from manual and automatic IHC staining of brain samples were compared, as well as potential differences in suitability of common IHC glass slides. Further, possibilities of image digitalization and connected issues were investigated. In our study, automatic staining showed more consistent staining results, compared to manual staining procedures. Digitalization and digital post-processing facilitated direct analysis and analysis for reproducibility considerably. No differences were found for different commercially available microscopic glass slides regarding suitability of IHC brain researches, but a certain rate of tissue loss should be expected during the staining process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 13% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#973
of 2,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,047
of 442,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#26
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,085 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.