Table 5.
Results of the histotyping by each assessor (Ass)
| TSE histotyping by reference group | Ass. 1 | Ass. 2 | Ass. 3 | Ass. 4 | Ass. 5 | Ass. 6 | Ass. 7 | Ass. 8 | Ass. 9 | Ass. 10 | Ass. 11 | Ass. 12 | Ass. 13 | Agree (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MM/MV 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
| MM/MV 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
| MM 1+2C | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 85 |
| MM 1+2C | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 100 |
| VV 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 |
| VV 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 100 |
| MV 2K | 3 | 3 | 9e | 3 | 2c | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 85 |
| MV 2K | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 100 |
| MV 2K+C | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 54 |
| MV 2K+C | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8b | 9 | 10c | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 77 |
| MM 2C | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 10d | 9f | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 77 |
| MM 2C | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 9f | 9f | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 85 |
| MM 2C | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8h | 8h | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 85 |
| VV 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1a | 1a | 6 | 6 | 6 | 69 |
| VV 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 10d | 77 |
| MM 2T | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 100 |
| MM 2T | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10d | 92 |
| Atypical | 10 | 3g | 10 | 1b | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 85 |
| Atypical | 10 | 6b | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 6b | 6b | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 69 |
| vCJD | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 100 |
| vCJD | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 100 |
| Agree (%) | 86 | 95 | 90 | 86 | 100 | 95 | 66 | 66 | 86 | 86 | 100 | 95 | 86 | ||
a
The assessor stated that VV1 would also be a possible diagnosis
b
Impossible diagnosis according to the given exclusion criteria
c
The kuru-type amyloid plaques in cerebellum were missed
d
Criteria for defining the case as atypical were not provided by the assessor
e
The assessor considered the presence of a single “doubtful” IHC focus of coarse PrP deposition in the occ. cortex to be relevant
f
Typed as MV 2K despite no kuru-type amyloid plaques being seen
g
Typed as MV 2K despite no plaque-like deposits being seen in the cerebellar granular layer
h
Typed as MM 1+2C despite no synaptic deposits being seen in the molecular layer of the cerebellum