Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International consensus for neuroblastoma molecular diagnostics: report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Biology Committee

Open access
Ambros, P F, Ambros, I M, Brodeur, G M, Haber, M, Khan, J, Nakagawara, A, Schleiermacher, G, Speleman, F, Spitz, R, London, W B, Cohn, S L, Pearson, A D J, Maris, J M·2009·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Neuroblastoma serves as a paradigm for utilising tumour genomic data for determining patient prognosis and treatment allocation. However, before the establishment of the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force in 2004, international consensus on markers, methodology, and data interpretation did not exist, compromising the reliability of decisive genetic markers and inhibiting translational research efforts. The objectives of the INRG Biology Committee were to identify highly prognostic genetic aberrations to be included in the new INRG risk classification schema and to develop precise definitions, decisive biomarkers, and technique standardisation. The review of the INRG database (n=8800 patients) by the INRG Task Force finally enabled the identification of the most significant neuroblastoma biomarkers. In addition, the Biology Committee compared the standard operating procedures of different cooperative groups to arrive at international consensus for methodology, nomenclature, and future directions. Consensus was reached to include MYCN status, 11q23 allelic status, and ploidy in the INRG classification system on the basis of an evidence-based review of the INRG database. Standardised operating procedures for analysing these genetic factors were adopted, and criteria for proper nomenclature were developed. Neuroblastoma treatment planning is highly dependant on tumour cell genomic features, and it is likely that a comprehensive panel of DNA-based biomarkers will be used in future risk assignment algorithms applying genome-wide techniques. Consensus on methodology and interpretation is essential for uniform INRG classification and will greatly facilitate international and cooperative clinical and translational research 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 · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605014

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 404

Metadata

Authors
Ambros, P. F., Ambros, I. M., Brodeur, G. M., Haber, M., Khan, J., Nakagawara, A., Schleiermacher, G., Speleman, F., Spitz, R., London, W. B., Cohn, S. L., Pearson, A. D. J., & Maris, J. M.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2009-04-28
Volume
100
Issue
9
Pages
1471-1482
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2033037904
Cited by
404
References
3
FWCI
12.56
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: International consensus for neuroblastoma molecular diagnostics: report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Biology Committee. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605014
The paper
Ambros, P. F., Ambros, I. M., Brodeur, G. M., Haber, M., Khan, J., Nakagawara, A., Schleiermacher, G., Speleman, F., Spitz, R., London, W. B., Cohn, S. L., Pearson, A. D. J., & Maris, J. M. (2009). International consensus for neuroblastoma molecular diagnostics: report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Biology Committee. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605014

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.