Good question — this is fundamentally a comparative/subjective judgment based on several reference points:

Anatomic site-matched comparison

  • Sebaceous gland size and number vary significantly by body location. “Normal” is defined relative to what’s expected for that specific site (e.g., ear margin vs. dorsal trunk vs. footpad)

Section-level assessment

  • Pathologists compare glands across all submitted sections to each other — if glands are uniformly small and sparse throughout, that itself becomes suspicious
  • In sebaceous adenitis, glands are absent or severely reduced — easy to call abnormal
  • In early/mild cases, reduced numbers may be subtle

Key histologic criteria for sebaceous adenitis:

  • Granulomatous/lymphoplasmacytic inflammation at the site where sebaceous glands should be (even if glands are destroyed/absent)
  • Sebaceous gland dropout — absence where expected
  • Perifollicular fibrosis replacing gland tissue

Why “within normal limits” here matters: In your report, the sebaceous glands being normal is a critical negative finding — it argues against sebaceous adenitis and supports ear margin dermatosis, where the primary pathology is infundibular hyperkeratosis with intact sebaceous glands.

The honest answer is that “normal” is partly experiential — it requires familiarity with the expected gland density for that site and breed.

Here are the best image sources I found:


Normal sebaceous glands (for comparison)


Abnormal — Sebaceous Adenitis


Key visual difference to look for:

  • Normal: lobular clusters of pale vacuolated sebocytes adjacent to follicles, clearly visible at isthmus level
  • Abnormal (SA): sebaceous glands absent or replaced by granulomatous/lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate at the expected gland location

Sources: