Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis

Open access
Graus, Francesc, Titulaer, Maarten J, Balu, Ramani, Benseler, Susanne, Bien, Christian G, Cellucci, Tania, Cortese, Irene, Dale, Russell C, Gelfand, Jeffrey M, Geschwind, Michael, Glaser, Carol A, Honnorat, Jerome, Höftberger, Romana, Iizuka, Takahiro, Irani, Sarosh R, Lancaster, Eric, Leypoldt, Frank, Prüss, Harald, Rae-Grant, Alexander, Reindl, Markus, Rosenfeld, Myrna R, Rostásy, Kevin, Saiz, Albert, Venkatesan, Arun, Vincent, Angela, Wandinger, Klaus-Peter, Waters, Patrick, Dalmau, Josep·2016·The Lancet Neurology

Abstract

Encephalitis is a severe inflammatory disorder of the brain with many possible causes and a complex differential diagnosis. Advances in autoimmune encephalitis research in the past 10 years have led to the identification of new syndromes and biomarkers that have transformed the diagnostic approach to these disorders. However, existing criteria for autoimmune encephalitis are too reliant on antibody testing and response to immunotherapy, which might delay the diagnosis. We reviewed the literature and gathered the experience of a team of experts with the aims of developing a practical, syndrome-based diagnostic approach to autoimmune encephalitis and providing guidelines to navigate through the differential diagnosis. Because autoantibody test results and response to therapy are not available at disease onset, we based the initial diagnostic approach on neurological assessment and conventional tests that are accessible to most clinicians. Through logical differential diagnosis, levels of evidence for autoimmune encephalitis (possible, probable, or definite) are achieved, which can lead to prompt immunotherapy.

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/s1474-4422(15)00401-9

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 4,516

Metadata

Authors
Graus, F., Titulaer, M. J., Balu, R., Benseler, S., Bien, C. G., Cellucci, T., Cortese, I., Dale, R. C., Gelfand, J. M., Geschwind, M., Glaser, C. A., Honnorat, J., Höftberger, R., Iizuka, T., Irani, S. R., Lancaster, E., Leypoldt, F., Prüss, H., Rae-Grant, A., Reindl, M., Rosenfeld, M. R., Rostásy, K., Saiz, A., Venkatesan, A., Vincent, A., Wandinger, K.-P., Waters, P., & Dalmau, J.
Venue
The Lancet Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
391-404
ISSN
1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2280783985
Cited by
4,516
References
7
FWCI
250.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00401-9
The paper
Graus, F., Titulaer, M. J., Balu, R., Benseler, S., Bien, C. G., Cellucci, T., Cortese, I., Dale, R. C., Gelfand, J. M., Geschwind, M., Glaser, C. A., Honnorat, J., Höftberger, R., Iizuka, T., Irani, S. R., Lancaster, E., Leypoldt, F., Prüss, H., Rae-Grant, A., . . . Dalmau, J. (2016). A clinical approach to diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis. The Lancet Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(15)00401-9

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.