Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment

Open access
Cervantes, Francisco, Dupriez, Brigitte, Pereira, Arturo, Passamonti, Francesco, Reilly, John T., Morra, Enrica, Vannucchi, Alessandro M., Mesa, Ruben A., Demory, Jean-Loup, Barosi, Giovanni, Rumi, Elisa, Tefferi, Ayalew·2009·Blood

Abstract

Therapeutic decision-making in primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is becoming more challenging because of the increasing use of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and new investigational drugs. To enhance this process by developing a highly discriminative prognostic system, 1054 patients consecutively diagnosed with PMF at 7 centers were studied. Overall median survival was 69 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61-76). Multivariate analysis of parameters obtained at disease diagnosis identified age greater than 65 years, presence of constitutional symptoms, hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL, leukocyte count greater than 25 × 109/L, and circulating blast cells 1% or greater as predictors of shortened survival. Based on the presence of 0 (low risk), 1 (intermediate risk-1), 2 (intermediate risk-2) or greater than or equal to 3 (high risk) of these variables, 4 risk groups with no overlapping in their survival curves were delineated; respective median survivals were 135, 95, 48, and 27 months (P < .001). Compared with prior prognostic models, the new risk stratification system displayed higher predictive accuracy, replicability, and discriminating power. In 409 patients with assessable metaphases, cytogenetic abnormalities were associated with shorter survival, but their independent contribution to prognosis was restricted to patients in the intermediate-risk groups. JAK2V617F did not cluster with a specific risk group or affect survival.

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 · 10.1182/blood-2008-07-170449

Cites

39 of 39 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 39 references

Cited by

See all 1,255

Metadata

Authors
Cervantes, F., Dupriez, B., Pereira, A., Passamonti, F., Reilly, J. T., Morra, E., Vannucchi, A. M., Mesa, R. A., Demory, J.-L., Barosi, G., Rumi, E., & Tefferi, A.
Venue
Blood
Published
2009-03-26
Volume
113
Issue
13
Pages
2895-2901
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2127559749
Cited by
1,255
References
39
FWCI
23.12
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: New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2008-07-170449
The paper
Cervantes, F., Dupriez, B., Pereira, A., Passamonti, F., Reilly, J. T., Morra, E., Vannucchi, A. M., Mesa, R. A., Demory, J.-L., Barosi, G., Rumi, E., & Tefferi, A. (2009). New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-07-170449

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.