Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 767

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contemporary consensus proposal on criteria and classification of eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes

Open access
Valent, Peter, Klion, Amy D., Horny, Hans-Peter, Roufosse, Florence, Gotlib, Jason, Weller, Peter F., Hellmann, Andrzej, Metzgeroth, Georgia, Leiferman, Kristin M., Arock, Michel, Butterfield, Joseph H., Sperr, Wolfgang R., Sotlar, Karl, Vandenberghe, Peter, Haferlach, Torsten, Simon, Hans-Uwe, Reiter, Andreas, Gleich, Gerald J.·2012·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

Eosinophilia is an important indicator of various neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions. Depending on the underlying disease and mechanisms, eosinophil infiltration can lead to organ dysfunction, clinical symptoms, or both. During the past 2 decades, several different classifications of eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes have been proposed in various fields of medicine. Although criteria and definitions are, in part, overlapping, no global consensus has been presented to date. The Year 2011 Working Conference on Eosinophil Disorders and Syndromes was organized to update and refine the criteria and definitions for eosinophilic disorders and to merge prior classifications in a contemporary multidisciplinary schema. A panel of experts from the fields of immunology, allergy, hematology, and pathology contributed to this project. The expert group agreed on unifying terminologies and criteria and a classification that delineates various forms of hypereosinophilia, including primary and secondary variants based on specific hematologic and immunologic conditions, and various forms of the hypereosinophilic syndrome. For patients in whom no underlying disease or hypereosinophilic syndrome is found, the term hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance is introduced. The proposed novel criteria, definitions, and terminologies should assist in daily practice, as well as in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials.

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.jaci.2012.02.019

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

See all 767

Metadata

Authors
Valent, P., Klion, A. D., Horny, H.-P., Roufosse, F., Gotlib, J., Weller, P. F., Hellmann, A., Metzgeroth, G., Leiferman, K. M., Arock, M., Butterfield, J. H., Sperr, W. R., Sotlar, K., Vandenberghe, P., Haferlach, T., Simon, H.-U., Reiter, A., & Gleich, G. J.
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
130
Issue
3
Pages
607-612.e9
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050068982
Cited by
767
References
70
FWCI
27.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Contemporary consensus proposal on criteria and classification of eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.019
The paper
Valent, P., Klion, A. D., Horny, H.-P., Roufosse, F., Gotlib, J., Weller, P. F., Hellmann, A., Metzgeroth, G., Leiferman, K. M., Arock, M., Butterfield, J. H., Sperr, W. R., Sotlar, K., Vandenberghe, P., Haferlach, T., Simon, H.-U., Reiter, A., & Gleich, G. J. (2012). Contemporary consensus proposal on criteria and classification of eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.02.019

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.