A Comparative Assessment of Methods of Demonstrating Amyloidosis in Human Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared methods of demonstrating amyloidosis in human tissues to recommend suitable staining methods in resource-poor settings. Human Liver and kidney tissues were collected and fixed in 10% formal saline for 24 hours. Liver and kidney sections were obtained from post-mortem samples. Samples were cut with a thickness of 3mm in the cutting-up room. The selected tissues were placed in tissue baskets carefully labeled and processed histologically. The tissues were processed using an automatic tissue processor. The staining methods employed in staining the sections were modified Highman’s Congo Red, Metachromatic Crystal Violet method, and Toluidine blue methods. The results showed the different staining reactions of the liver and kidney tissues to special these stains. The demonstration of amyloidosis using modified Highman’s Congo Red method appeared as red in both the liver and kidney tissue micrographs. The demonstration of amyloidosis using Metachromatic Crystal Violet stain appeared as blue in both the liver and kidney tissue micrograph. Furthermore, the demonstration of amyloidosis using Toluidine blue stain appeared as blue and red pigments in both the liver and kidney tissue micrograph. However, this staining was properly differentiated in all the tissues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".