The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pushing the boundaries of neuromyelitis optica: Does antibody make the disease?
Abstract
In just over a decade, neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has been transformed from an obscure, untreatable disorder that was often confused with multiple sclerosis (MS), or relegated to second-rank MS variant status, into a distinct nosologic entity with its own serologic marker and a wide range of as yet unproven, but universally deployed treatment options.1,2 Such a remarkable change of fortune is due, in large measure, to the breakthrough discovery of serum aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G antibody (AQP4-IgG) that is exquisitely specific to NMO.3,4 The discovery of AQP4-IgG galvanized the field of NMO research and led to recognition of a much broader spectrum of clinical presentations seen in NMO than was previously appreciated.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“AQP4-IgG is highly specific for NMOSD, although false positives occur in up to 0.5% of MS patients using ELISA assays, potentially resulting in misdiagnosis.54,55”
From Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges (2017) · cites this paper as [55]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.1007/s00415-013-7169-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Wong E Vishwanath VA Kister I. Rituximab in neuromyelitis optica: a review of literature. World J Neurol 2015; 5 :39–46. · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17551-X · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1084/jem.20050304 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001729 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1212/01.wnl.0000216139.44259.74 · DOI
- 10.1002/ana.20770 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jns.2010.07.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jns.2012.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1581 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: progress and challenges
Brownlee, W. J., Hardy, T. A., Fazekas, F., & Miller, D. H. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30959-x · Cited by 701
Metadata
- Authors
- Kister, I., & Paul, F.
- Affiliations
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2015-07-14
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 118-119
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W1766916341
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ocular Diseases and Behçet’s Syndrome
- Keywords
- neuromyelitis optica, aquaporin-4 antibodies, aquaporin-4, serological markers, disease classification, multiple sclerosis
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Neuromyelitis Optica
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
