Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A practical approach to the diagnosis of systemic amyloidoses

Open access
Fernández de Larrea, Carlos, Verga, Laura, Morbini, Patrizia, Klersy, Catherine, Lavatelli, Francesca, Foli, Andrea, Obici, Laura, Milani, Paolo, Capello, Gian Luca, Paulli, Marco, Palladini, Giovanni, Merlini, Giampaolo·2015·Blood

Abstract

Key Points: The first wide, prospective report on the role of IEM in the differential diagnosis of systemic amyloidosis. IEM allows for the correct characterization of the amyloid protein in virtually all cases and represents a viable alternative to mass spectrometry.

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-2014-11-609883

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Fernández de Larrea, C., Verga, L., Morbini, P., Klersy, C., Lavatelli, F., Foli, A., Obici, L., Milani, P., Capello, G. L., Paulli, M., Palladini, G., & Merlini, G.
Venue
Blood
Published
2015-04-02
Volume
125
Issue
14
Pages
2239-2244
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2030131482
Cited by
208
References
0
FWCI
8.62
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: A practical approach to the diagnosis of systemic amyloidoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2014-11-609883
The paper
Fernández de Larrea, C., Verga, L., Morbini, P., Klersy, C., Lavatelli, F., Foli, A., Obici, L., Milani, P., Capello, G. L., Paulli, M., Palladini, G., & Merlini, G. (2015). A practical approach to the diagnosis of systemic amyloidoses. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-11-609883

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.