Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 182 of the 182 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer-Related Fatigue

Open access
Berger, Ann M., Abernethy, Amy Pickar, Atkinson, Ashley, Barsevick, Andrea M., Breitbart, William S., Cella, David, Cimprich, Bernadine, Cleeland, Charles, Eisenberger, Mario A., Escalante, Carmen P., Jacobsen, Paul B., Kaldor, Phyllis, Ligibel, Jennifer A., Murphy, Barbara A., O'Connor, Tracey, Pirl, William F., Rodler, Eve, Rugo, Hope S., Thomas, Jay, Wagner, Lynne I.·2010·Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0067
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

NCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2A:The recommendation is based on lowerlevel evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2B:The recommendation is based on lowerlevel evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement).Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement.All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial.Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. Please NoteThe NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines™) are a statement of consensus of the authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment.Any clinician seeking to apply or consult the NCCN Guidelines is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment.The National Comprehensive Cancer Network ® (NCCN ® ) makes no representation or warranties of any kind regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their applications or use in any way.

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 · 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0067

Cites

182 of 182 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 182 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Berger, A. M., Abernethy, A. P., Atkinson, A., Barsevick, A. M., Breitbart, W. S., Cella, D., Cimprich, B., Cleeland, C., Eisenberger, M. A., Escalante, C. P., Jacobsen, P. B., Kaldor, P., Ligibel, J. A., Murphy, B. A., O'Connor, T., Pirl, W. F., Rodler, E., Rugo, H. S., Thomas, J., & Wagner, L. I.
Venue
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Publisher
Harborside Press, LLC
Published
2010-08
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
904-931
ISSN
  • 1540-1405 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-1413
DOI
10.6004/jnccn.2010.0067
OpenAlex
W1944571622
Cited by
280
References
182
FWCI
4.99
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: Cancer-Related Fatigue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0067
The paper
Berger, A. M., Abernethy, A. P., Atkinson, A., Barsevick, A. M., Breitbart, W. S., Cella, D., Cimprich, B., Cleeland, C., Eisenberger, M. A., Escalante, C. P., Jacobsen, P. B., Kaldor, P., Ligibel, J. A., Murphy, B. A., O'Connor, T., Pirl, W. F., Rodler, E., Rugo, H. S., Thomas, J., & Wagner, L. I. (2010). Cancer-Related Fatigue. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2010.0067

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.