Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
The scoring system for HER2 staining categorises tumours as 3+ (strongly positive staining), 2+ (moderately strong staining), 1+ (weak staining) and 0 (negative for staining).
Staining intensity was classified as grade 0 (no staining), grade 1 (weak staining), grade 2 (moderately strong staining), grade 3 (very strong staining), or grade 4 (extremely strong staining).
Similar(58)
Staining for HER2 was scored according to the clinical guidelines for the assessment of HER2 status: 0, no staining; 1+, more than 10% of cells showed weak and incomplete membrane staining; 2+, moderately strong membrane staining in >10% of the tumor cells; 3+, strong membrane staining in >10% of the tumor cells.
The test line may stain at different intensities, and positive results may be subjectively rated 1+ when staining is weak, 2+ when staining is moderately strong, 3+ when staining is strong, and 4+ when staining is very strong.
Similarly, TFAP2A was weakly or moderately expressed in the two ILC samples examined whereas a moderate to strong staining was observed in 5 of the 9 IDC samples.
Score for staining intensity: 0 = negative, 1 = weak staining, 2 = moderate staining, 3 = strong staining.
Staining intensity: 0, no staining; 1, weak staining; 2, moderate staining; and 3, strong staining.
Semi-quantitative scale: = no staining; = weak staining; = moderate staining; and = strong staining.
Staining intensity was assessed as follows; strong staining; moderate staining; weak staining.
For the commercial array, although one serous tumour and one mucinous tumour stained moderately, the only epithelial ovarian tumours to display strong staining with the anti-eEF1A2 antibody are clear cell carcinomas.
Immunohistochemistry for p53 protein (strong staining of a large percentage of tumor cell nuclei) has been reported as a highly specific, but moderately sensitive surrogate marker for the presence of a TP53 mutation in gliomas [ 112].
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com