Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 364

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dengue: defining protective versus pathologic immunity

Open access
Rothman, Alan L.·2004·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Dengue is an expanding public health problem, and an effective vaccine remains elusive. This review discusses how the significant influence of sequential infection with different dengue virus serotypes on the severity of disease can be viewed in terms of beneficial and detrimental effects of heterologous immunity. A more complete understanding of these effects is likely to be critical for predicting optimal vaccine-induced immune responses.

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 · 10.1172/jci200421512

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 364

Metadata

Authors
Rothman, A. L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
113
Issue
7
Pages
946-951
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163600402
Cited by
364
References
1
FWCI
21.38
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: Dengue: defining protective versus pathologic immunity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci200421512
The paper
Rothman, A. L. (2004). Dengue: defining protective versus pathologic immunity. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci200421512

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.