From the organizers:
Free webinar (via Google Meet)
- Up to 1,000 registered participants
- First 500 to log in will have interactive access (full participation)
- Additional participants will join in view-only mode
- Recording available exclusively to registered participants
- Certificates of attendance provided to all live attendees (interactive and view-only)
Speaker
Professor Jeffrey Everitt, DVM, DACVP, DACLAM, is a is Professor Emeritus in Pathology at Duke University School of Medicine, USA. A veterinary pathologist and laboratory animal medicine specialist, he trained at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois.
His career has included research, teaching and scientific advisory work across academia, industry and government, with particular expertise in toxicologic pathology, pulmonary and renal disease, digital pathology and the use of animal models in biomedical research and testing. He has served on numerous national and international scientific committees and currently sits on the NIH Board of Scientific Counselors for the Division of Translational Toxicology. For the past 15 years, a major focus of his work has been improving rigour and reproducibility in animal studies.
Abstract
Good science can be lost in the final steps of an animal study. Poorly planned necropsies, inconsistent biosampling, unsuitable preservation or unclear scoring can compromise tissue-based data, waste animals and weaken reproducibility.
This webinar follows the pathology workflow from study design and clinical pathology sampling to necropsy, fixation, histology, assessment and reporting. Drawing on established recommendations for rigorous pathology practice and the MINPEPA reporting framework, Professor Jeffrey Everitt will examine where variability and bias arise, why pathology expertise should be involved early, and how study-specific protocols can improve consistency. The session will address tissue and fluid collection, preservation for morphological and molecular endpoints, lesion terminology and scoring, blinding, documentation, cost-conscious endpoint selection, and transparent reporting. Particular attention will be given to aligning methods with the scientific question and obtaining reliable information from each animal without unnecessary sampling or repeated studies.
Learning outcomes
- Plan pathology input from the outset
- Match sampling methods to study endpoints
- Standardise necropsy and sample handling
- Apply consistent scoring and bias controls
- Report pathology data using MINPEPA principles
Key takeaways
- Pathology should inform study design
- Necropsy is a critical one-time event
- Preservation determines analytical possibilities
- Standardisation limits variation and sample loss
- Transparent reporting supports reproducibility