Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnosis, risk stratification, and response evaluation in classical myeloproliferative neoplasms

Open access
Rumi, Elisa, Cazzola, Mario·2017·Blood

Abstract

Philadelphia-negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) include polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary myelofibrosis (PMF). The 2016 revision of the WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues includes new criteria for the diagnosis of these disorders. Somatic mutations in the 3 driver genes, that is, JAK2, CALR, and MPL, represent major diagnostic criteria in combination with hematologic and morphological abnormalities. PV is characterized by erythrocytosis with suppressed endogenous erythropoietin production, bone marrow panmyelosis, and JAK2 mutation. Thrombocytosis, bone marrow megakaryocytic proliferation, and presence of JAK2, CALR, or MPL mutation are the main diagnostic criteria for ET. PMF is characterized by bone marrow megakaryocytic proliferation, reticulin and/or collagen fibrosis, and presence of JAK2, CALR, or MPL mutation. Prefibrotic myelofibrosis represents an early phase of myelofibrosis, and is characterized by granulocytic/megakaryocytic proliferation and lack of reticulin fibrosis in the bone marrow. The genomic landscape of MPNs is more complex than initially thought and involves several mutant genes beyond the 3 drivers. Comutated, myeloid tumor-suppressor genes contribute to phenotypic variability, phenotypic shifts, and progression to more aggressive disorders. Patients with myeloid neoplasms are at variable risk of vascular complications, including arterial or venous thrombosis and bleeding. Current prognostic models are mainly based on clinical and hematologic parameters, but innovative models that include genetic data are being developed for both clinical and trial settings. In perspective, molecular profiling of MPNs might also allow for accurate evaluation and monitoring of response to innovative drugs that target the mutant clone.

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-2016-10-695957

Cites

93 of 93 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 93 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Rumi, E., & Cazzola, M.
Venue
Blood
Published
2017-02-09
Volume
129
Issue
6
Pages
680-692
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2567208701
Cited by
258
References
93
FWCI
16.63
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: Diagnosis, risk stratification, and response evaluation in classical myeloproliferative neoplasms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2016-10-695957
The paper
Rumi, E., & Cazzola, M. (2017). Diagnosis, risk stratification, and response evaluation in classical myeloproliferative neoplasms. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-10-695957

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.