Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2026
Polarized Versus Diffractive Microscopy in Distinguishing Scarring From Non-Scarring Alopecia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Balan Kerem, Almutairi Yousef, Nasseri Tarik Sulaiman Al, Hammad Maryam, Huang Yingxue, Bai Juan, Keller Kathryn, Andrade Maya, Elston Dirk M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The histologic diagnosis of alopecia can be challenging. Polarized light microscopy and diffractive microscopy can be performed without added cost or the need for special stains. We sought to determine if they can be of value in the diagnosis of alopecia biopsy specimens.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 152 deidentified alopecia scalp biopsy slides (80 non-scarring and 72 scarring) with polarized and diffractive microscopy and analyzed the performance of each method.
RESULTS: Fibrous tracts were evaluable in 150 of the 152 specimens. One was excluded as the dermis was completely replaced by scar and one demonstrated follicles but no empty fibrous tracts. Intensity of polarization and diffraction differed between scarring and non-scarring alopecia, with clearer separation in polarized microscopy (p < 0.001) compared with diffractive microscopy (p = 0.029). Polarized intensity showed good discrimination (AUC 0.804) with high specificity (94.9%) and modest sensitivity (49.3%). In contrast, grading diffractive intensity added little to a simpler bimodal scale (AUC 0.585). A circumferential perifollicular halo was more common in non-scarring alopecia, especially androgenetic alopecia.
CONCLUSION: Polarized light microscopy outperformed diffractive microscopy for distinguishing scarring from non-scarring alopecia and provides a highly specific adjunct to simple microscopy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 152 deidentified alopecia scalp biopsy slides (80 non-scarring and 72 scarring) with polarized and diffractive microscopy and analyzed the performance of each method.
RESULTS: Fibrous tracts were evaluable in 150 of the 152 specimens. One was excluded as the dermis was completely replaced by scar and one demonstrated follicles but no empty fibrous tracts. Intensity of polarization and diffraction differed between scarring and non-scarring alopecia, with clearer separation in polarized microscopy (p < 0.001) compared with diffractive microscopy (p = 0.029). Polarized intensity showed good discrimination (AUC 0.804) with high specificity (94.9%) and modest sensitivity (49.3%). In contrast, grading diffractive intensity added little to a simpler bimodal scale (AUC 0.585). A circumferential perifollicular halo was more common in non-scarring alopecia, especially androgenetic alopecia.
CONCLUSION: Polarized light microscopy outperformed diffractive microscopy for distinguishing scarring from non-scarring alopecia and provides a highly specific adjunct to simple microscopy.