Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 28, Number 11, Novembre 2012
Lames virtuelles en pathologie
Page(s) 990 - 992
Section M/S Revues
Published online 12 November 2012
  1. Ameisen D, Vergier B, Hauchecorne O, et al. On line digital microscopy in 2007: one technology, many uses. Ann Pathol 2008 ; 28 : 17–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Nassar A, Cohen C, Agersborg SS, et al. A multisite performance study comparing the reading of immunohistochemical slides on a computer monitor with conventional manual microscopy for estrogen and progesterone receptor analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 2011 ; 135 : 461–467. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007 ; 25 : 118–145. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hashiguchi A, Hashimoto Y, Suzuki H, Sakamoto M. Using immunofluorescent digital slide technology to quantify protein expression in archival paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Pathol Int 2010 ; 60 : 720–725. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dimaras H, Marchong MN, Gallie BL. Quantitative analysis of tumor size in a murine model of retinoblastoma. Ophthalmic Genet 2009 ; 30 : 84–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Krajewska M, Smith LH, Rong J, et al. Image analysis algorithms for immunohistochemical assessment of cell death events and fibrosis in tissue sections. J Histochem Cytochem 2009 ; 57 : 649–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hipp JD, Lucas DR, Emmert-Buck MR, et al. Digital slide repositories for publications : lessons learned from the microarray community. Am J Surg Pathol 2011 ; 35 : 783–786. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mulrane L, Rexhepaj E, Smart V, et al. Creation of a digital slide and tissue microarray resource from a multi-institutional predictive toxicology study in the rat : an initial report from the PredTox group. Exp Toxicol Pathol 2008 ; 60 : 235–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McGinley JN, Thompson HJ. Quantitative assessment of mammary gland density in rodents using digital image analysis. Biol Proced Online 2011 ; 13 : 4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, et al. Digital image analysis in pathology : benefits and obligation. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2011 ; 34 : 1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Vergier B, Guettier C. L’utilisation des lames virtuelles en pédagogie. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 986–989. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bertheau P, Chabouis A, Fabiani B, et al. Télépathologie par lames virtuelles, ou le diagnostic anatomopathologique en réseau numérique. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 983–985. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Têtu B, Boulanger J, Houde C, et al. Le réseau de télépathologie de l’Est du Québec : un véritable projet collectif. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 993–999. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.