Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5,459

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis and Staging Working Group Report

Open access
Jagasia, Madan H., Greinix, Hildegard T., Arora, Mukta, Williams, Kirsten M., Wolff, Daniel, Cowen, Edward W., Palmer, Jeanne, Weisdorf, Daniel, Treister, Nathaniel S., Cheng, Guang-Shing, Kerr, Holly, Stratton, Pamela, Duarte, Rafael F., McDonald, George B., Inamoto, Yoshihiro, Vigorito, Afonso, Arai, Sally, Datiles, Manuel B., Jacobsohn, David, Heller, Theo, Kitko, Carrie L., Mitchell, Sandra A., Martin, Paul J., Shulman, Howard, Wu, Roy S., Cutler, Corey S., Vogelsang, Georgia B., Lee, Stephanie J., Pavletic, Steven Z., Flowers, Mary E.D.·2015·Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation

Abstract

The 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference proposed new criteria for diagnosing and scoring the severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The 2014 NIH consensus maintains the framework of the prior consensus with further refinement based on new evidence. Revisions have been made to address areas of controversy or confusion, such as the overlap chronic GVHD subcategory and the distinction between active disease and past tissue damage. Diagnostic criteria for involvement of mouth, eyes, genitalia, and lungs have been revised. Categories of chronic GVHD should be defined in ways that indicate prognosis, guide treatment, and define eligibility for clinical trials. Revisions have been made to focus attention on the causes of organ-specific abnormalities. Attribution of organ-specific abnormalities to chronic GVHD has been addressed. This paradigm shift provides greater specificity and more accurately measures the global burden of disease attributed to GVHD, and it will facilitate biomarker association studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.001

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 5,459

Metadata

Authors
Jagasia, M. H., Greinix, H. T., Arora, M., Williams, K. M., Wolff, D., Cowen, E. W., Palmer, J., Weisdorf, D., Treister, N. S., Cheng, G.-S., Kerr, H., Stratton, P., Duarte, R. F., McDonald, G. B., Inamoto, Y., Vigorito, A., Arai, S., Datiles, M. B., Jacobsohn, D., Heller, T., Kitko, C. L., Mitchell, S. A., Martin, P. J., Shulman, H., Wu, R. S., Cutler, C. S., Vogelsang, G. B., Lee, S. J., Pavletic, S. Z., & Flowers, M. E. D.
Venue
Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
389-401.e1
ISSN
1083-8791 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2379365975
Cited by
5,459
References
0
FWCI
226.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis and Staging Working Group Report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.001
The paper
Jagasia, M. H., Greinix, H. T., Arora, M., Williams, K. M., Wolff, D., Cowen, E. W., Palmer, J., Weisdorf, D., Treister, N. S., Cheng, G.-S., Kerr, H., Stratton, P., Duarte, R. F., McDonald, G. B., Inamoto, Y., Vigorito, A., Arai, S., Datiles, M. B., Jacobsohn, D., . . . Flowers, M. E. D. (2015). National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis and Staging Working Group Report. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.12.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.