Bonaventure A, Harewood R, Stiller CA, et al. Worldwide comparison of survival from childhood leukaemia for 1995–2009, by subtype, age, and sex (CONCORD-2): a population-based study of individual data for 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. Lancet Haematol 4: e202–17—2017; The appendix for this article  has been corrected. The list of CONCORD Working Group members for the Registro de Câncer de São Paulo (Brazil) should only include MRDO Latorre and LF Tanaka. The correct affiliation for N Bhoo-Pathy is University of Malaya , and the correct affiliation for O Chimedsuren is Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences–MNUMS (Mongolia). This correction has been made to the online version as of April 28, 2017.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 6. Instead of “Department of Cardiology, Kaifeng People's Hospital, Kaifeng, China,” it should be “Department of Cardiology, Kaifeng Central Hospital, Kaifeng, China.”The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-47502-z, published online 02 August 2019Correction to: In the original version of this Article, Monika Gregová, Kristýna Bubová and Jana Hořínková were incorrectly affiliated with ‘Department of Rheumatology, Nordic Bioscience, Biomarkers and Research, Herlev, Denmark’. The correct affiliation is listed below.Institute of Rheumatology and Department of Rheumatology, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University in Prague, Na Slupi 4, Prague, 128 50, Czech RepublicThis error has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


In the report “Update: Demographic, Product, and Substance-Use Characteristics of Hospitalized Patients in a Nationwide Outbreak of E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use–Associated Lung Injuries — United States, December 2019” on page 1444, there was an error in the Table.81/214 (38).In “TABLE. Demographic and e-cigarette, or vaping, product use characteristics among patients with hospitalized cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) reported to CDC — United States, August–December 2019,” in the last column, under “Any CBD-containing product use,” in the first row below the row header “Combination of substance use,” the values for “Both THC- and nicotine-containing product use” should have read


Page 2: Lines 3 and 4 of Acknowledgments should read as follows. “This work was supported by a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor grant awarded to Mark Goldman (grant number 52008137).Volume 9, no. 8, e01540-19, 2020, We thank Jonathan Eisen, Katherine Dahlhausen, Mark Goldman, Ashley Vater, and David Coil for help with course design and planning.”


I understand you teach college classes and I’m wondering how . . .” That’s what can happen when a “College Educator” steps off campus, steps into the community. That’s the enrollment superpower of a “Public Educator.” We’ll track a decade of innovative off-campus educational presentations strategically positioned to target new students, lead to cognitive-enhancing programs with adult residential living communities, and, importantly, help reset the role and relevancy of today’s gerontology faculty. Examples will include service club meetings, public agency, business and non-profit training retreats, and residential community staff training. Examples include “This is Your Brain on . . .” events such as Music, Loneliness, Sleep, Volunteering, Sports Fandom, Quilting, Golf and, of course, TasteAerobics featuring Brain-Healthy Chocolate. We’ll conclude with an innovative enrollment and awareness-raising project in a small city west of Portland that kicked off with a 6-part Aging Education Series. Part of a symposium sponsored by the Community College Interest Group.


An arbitrary state of a quantum bit  to the receiver”. This answer, which presented the quantum teleportation protocol, has revolutionized the field of quantum communication.In 1993, Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crépeau, Richard Jozsa, Asher Peres, and William K. Wootters published their seminal paper presenting quantum teleportation, titled “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels” , together with four colleagues, invented quantum teleportation which allows the communication of quantum information over classical channels, also a task previously believed to be impossible. Two decades after their proposal, quantum teleportation has now been demonstrated over distances exceeding 1000 kilometers and is clearly destined to play a major role in future secure communications”. This special issue is dedicated to celebrating the silver jubilee of the seminal teleportation paper, and it features contributions from various areas of quantum communication.first teleportation experiment (1997) to several variations and generalizations of teleportation, such as active teleportation and quantum machines based on teleportation.Francesco De Martini and Fabio Sciarrino, in their paper “Twenty years of quantum state teleportation at the Sapienza University in Rome” , review measurements rather than entangled states. In particular, Gisin raises the question of whether entangled measurements can be used for generating non-classical output correlations in various quantum networks, and suggests a few candidates that may present such non-classical correlations.Nicolas Gisin, in his paper “Entanglement 25 years after quantum teleportation: Testing joint measurements in quantum networks” , discussexactly from a discrete probability distribution when the defining parameters of this probability distribution are partitioned between several remote parties. Furthermore, they apply their sampling scheme to the classical simulation of quantum entanglement measurements in the most general scenario, and analyze its communication complexity.Gilles Brassard, Luc Devroye, and Claude Gravel, in their paper “Remote sampling with applications to general entanglement simulation” , providequantum ensemble of pure states, known as the “Scrooge ensemble” (or “Scrooge distribution”), from a classical communication scenario. Specifically, he proves that a real-amplitude variant of the Scrooge distribution naturally appears in a classical communication scheme, and that the standard (complex-amplitude) Scrooge distribution appears in a modified version of the same communication scheme.William K. Wootters, in his paper “A classical interpretation of the Scrooge distribution” , shows hMichel Boyer, Rotem Liss, and Tal Mor, in their paper “Attacks against a simplified experimentally feasible semiquantum key distribution protocol” , exploreKan Wang, Xu-Tao Yu, Xiao-Fei Cai, and Zai-Chen Zhang, in their paper “Probabilistic teleportation of arbitrary two-qubit quantum state via non-symmetric quantum channel” , proposeWe hope that the papers in this special issue give insight regarding the different areas of quantum communication—most notably, quantum teleportation, quantum entanglement, and quantum cryptography.


In , the firThe correct affiliation should be “Department of Orthopaedics, People's Hospital of Guizhou Province, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.”The author apologizes for the error and any convenience it may have caused.


Justicia flava: Genome Comparative Analysis and Phylogenetic Relationships among Acanthaceae”, the funding was omitted in error. The statement is shown below:In the article titled “Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequence of “This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant no. D-119-130-1441. The authors, therefore, gratefully acknowledge DSR technical and financial support.”


In the article titled “Overexpression of GRK3, Promoting Tumor Proliferation, Is Predictive of Poor Prognosis in Colon Cancer” , there w


Tan M, Bhadoria A S, Cui F, et al. Estimating the proportion of people with chronic hepatitis B virus infection eligible for hepatitis B antiviral treatment worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 6: 106–19—2021; In this Article, Mingjuan Tan's affiliation should have been listed as Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore. A revised appendix has been uploaded. This correction has been made to the online version as of Jan 11, 2021, and the printed version is correct.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-68368-6, published online 15 July 2020.Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 1, which was incorrectly given as:“National Center for Technical Assistance to Industry (ASTIN), Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje – SENA, Medellín, Colombia”The correct affiliation is listed below:National Center for Technical Assistance to Industry (ASTIN), Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje – SENA, Cali, ColombiaThis error has now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-63583-7, published online 24 April 2020Correction to:The original version of this Article contained errors.Affiliation 3 was incorrectly given as ‘Systems Neurophysiology, Werner Reichardt Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University Tübingen, 72076, Tübingen, Germany’. The correct affiliation is listed below:Systems Neurophysiology, Werner Reichardt Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, 72076, Tübingen, GermanyIn addition, the Acknowledgements section was incomplete.“I thank Cornelius Schwarz for support for this research, alongside that from the Cognitive Neurology Department; Ute Grosshennig and Ursula Pascht for technical assistance; all members of the Cognitive Neurology Department for comments and helpful discussions.”now reads:“I thank Cornelius Schwarz for support for this research, alongside that from the Cognitive Neurology Department; Ute Grosshennig and Ursula Pascht for technical assistance; all members of the Cognitive Neurology Department for comments and helpful discussions. We acknowledge support by Open Access Publishing Fund of University of Tübingen.”These errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22909-2, published online 27 March 2018Correction to: In the original version of this Article, an additional affiliation for Augustus K. W. Chee was omitted. In addition, a present address was inadvertently included and has now been removed. The correction affiliations are:Centre for Advanced Photonics and Electronics, Electrical Engineering Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 9 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA, United Kingdom.Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom.The version of this Article previously published also contained a low resolution Figure 1.In addition, the original version of this Article contained typographical errors.In the Introduction section, in situ SE spectromicroscopy mandates an additional dimension permitting evaluation of the kinetic energy constituents of the composite signal22,27.”“Further, by acquiring an image series through an energy window of interest,now reads: in situ SE spectromicroscopy mandates an additional dimension permitting evaluation of the surface electronic band structure via kinetic energy (ESE) constituents of the composite signal22,27.”“Further, by acquiring an image series through an energy window of interest,In the Materials and Methods section, under subheading ‘Doping contrast characterisation from abrupt homojunctions’,I d is the column-averaged SE intensity from the layer of interest, I0 is the spurious background intensity obtained by blanking out the primary electron beam.”“now reads:I d is the pixel intensity from the layer of interest, I0 is the spurious background intensity obtained by blanking out the primary electron beam.”“ in situ spectromicroscopy’,In the same section, under subheading ‘SE energy-filtering andV def ≈ 2 V, which depends not only on the geometrical acceptance, but the type and thickness of the protective passivation layer on the detector.”“The actual sensitivity of the energy-resolved detector is further limited by the threshold energy for SE detection, and the origin of kinetic energy is estimated to be centred on now reads:V def ≈ 2 V, which depends not only on the geometrical acceptance, but the type and thickness of the protective passivation layer on the scintillator.”“The actual sensitivity of the energy-resolved detector is further limited by the threshold energy for SE detection, and the origin of kinetic energy is estimated to be centred on In the legend of Figure 1,p-layers of interest as a function of acceptor concentration, before and after surface-treatment.”“(Bottom) Row-averaged doping contrast values from the now reads:p-layers of interest as a function of acceptor concentration, before and after surface-treatment.”“(Bottom) Column-averaged doping contrast values from the In the legend of Figure 2,c) Doping contrast as a function of Na for V def at 5, 10, 15 and 20 V ), and 60 V (unfiltered).”“(now reads:c) Column-averaged doping contrast values as a function of Na for V def at 5, 10, 15 and 20 V ), and 60 V (unfiltered).”“ Doping contrast as a function of Na for V def at 5, 10, 15 and 20 V ), and 60 V (unfiltered).”“(now reads:c) Column-averaged doping contrast values as a function of Na for V def at 5, 10, 15 and 20 V ), and 60 V (unfiltered).”“, Professor Peter Wilshaw (University of Oxford), Dr John Ellis (X-FAB Silicon Foundries) and Dr Heike Angermann (Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin) for useful discussions, and FEI company for initiating the Image Contrast and Detection (ICD) European academic-industrial consortium programme that forms the subject of this manuscript.”now reads:“The author thanks Professor Sir Colin Humphreys (University of Cambridge), Professor Peter Wilshaw (University of Oxford), Dr John Ellis (X-FAB Silicon Foundries) and Dr Heike Angermann (Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin) for useful discussions, and Dr Gerard Van Veen and Dr Seyno Sluyterman (FEI company) for initiating the Image Contrast and Detection (ICD) European academic-industrial consortium programme that forms the subject of this manuscript.”These errors have now been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the Article.


In the published article, there were errors in affiliations 1 and 2. For affiliation 1, instead of “Department of Philosophy, University of Patras, Strovolos, Greece,” it should be “Department of Philosophy, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.” For affiliation 2, instead of “Department of Neurosurgery, Nicosia Genera Hospital, Patras, Cyprus,” it should be “Department of Neurosurgery, Nicosia General Hospital, Strovolos, Cyprus.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Association of smoking and right ventricular function in middle age: CARDIA study. Open Heart 2020;7:e001270.Moreira HT, Armstrong AC, Nwabuo CC, In the end matter, ‘Provenance and peer review’ statement has been correctly updated as ‘Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed’.


Dr Legrand’s first name was misspelled, and Dr Joannidis’s affiliation should have read Division of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. This article has been corrected.1In the Consensus Statement titled, “Recommendations on Acute Kidney Injury Biomarkers From the Acute Disease Quality Initiative Consensus Conference: A Consensus Statement,”


Correction to:Leukemia (2018);10.1038/s41375-018-0265-z;published online 28 September 2018In the original version of this Article the following authors were omitted:• Claudia Rossig • Paul Schlegel • Jean-Pierre Bourquin • Aurelie Cabannes • Luciano Dalla-Pozza • Sarah Alexander • Michel Zwaan • Amrana Quereshi • Keith August All authors agree to the inclusion of these added authorsThe acknowledgments section has also been updated to read:We thank the research coordinators and following physicians at pediatric cancer centers for contributing data to this project: Prashant Hiwarkar and Jayashree Motwani, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, UK; Kelly Maloney, Children’s Hospital of Colorado, USA; Mylene Bassal, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada; Yoav Messinger and Joanna Perkins, Children’s Hospital of Minnesota, USA; Van Huynh, Children’s Hospital of Orange County, USA; Richard Ho, Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, USA; Joanne Chuah and Jessa Morales, Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Australia; Donald Wells, Dell Children’s Hospital, USA; Nicolas Boissel, Hospital Saint-Louis, France; Tannie Huang, Kaiser Permanente, USA; Stacey Marjerrison, McMaster Children’s Hospital, Canada; William Carroll and Joanna Pierro, New York University Langone Medical Center, USA; Ajay Vora, Sheffield Children’s Hospital, UK; Donna Lancaster, The Royal Marsden Hospital, UK; Lucie Šrámková, University Hospital Motol, Czech Republic; Chatchawin Assanasen, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, USA; Rupert Handgretinger, University of Tübingen, Germany.This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


This article has been corrected.In the Original Investigation, “Association of Air Pollution and Heat Exposure With Preterm Birth, Low Birth Weight, and Stillbirth in the US: A Systematic Review,”


Following publication of the original article , the autThe collaborators’ names are included in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section and listed below. The author group has been updated above and the original article  has beenThe investigators of the LYMPHONIE study group are:Pascal Andreu, François Aptel, Marie Labruyère, Sébastien Prin, Guillaume Beltramo, Philippe Bonniaud, Philip Bielefeld, Hervé Devilliers, Bernard Bonnotte, Marielle Buisson and Alain Putot.The publisher apologises to the authors and the readers for the inconvenience caused by this error.


Due to a production error, affiliation 1 was incorrect. The correct affiliation is “Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China”.The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


For the second address affiliation, “Shenyang, Liaoning 110001” should have appeared as “Anshan, Liaoning 114011”; furthermore, for the third affiliation, “Liaoning Health Industry Group” should also have been included as a part of the address. Therefore, the authors’ affiliation information for this paper should have appeared as follows (changes are highlighted in bold):1,2, TAO LI3, XING NIU4, LIJIE CHEN5 and CHUNLIN GE1XUAN ZHU1Department of General Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001; 2Department of General Surgery, Anshan Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Anshan, Liaoning 114011; 3Department of General Surgery, Fukuang General Hospital, Liaoning Health Industry Group, Fushun, Liaoning 113008; 4Department of Second Clinical College, Shengjing Hospital Affiliated to China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004; 5Department of Third Clinical College, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, P.R. ChinaThe authors regret their oversight in this regard, and apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Datta S, Shah L, Gilman RH, Evans CA. Comparison of sputum collection methods for tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health 5: e760–712017; —In this Article, the wrong version of the appendix was included. The appendix has been corrected as of July 14, 2017.


Due to a production error, incorrect affiliations were provided for Lu Qin and Wenyu Jiang. Instead of “Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China,” it should be “Department of Neurology, Liuzhou Workers' Hospital/The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, China” for Lu Qin, and “Department of Neurology, Jiangbin Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China” for Wenyu Jiang.The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original article has been updated.


Following publication of the original article , the autThe affiliation of Zati Vatansever (31) is listed as “Veterinary Control Central Research Institute, Ankara, Turkey”.However, the correct affiliation is “Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Parasitology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey”.The authors apologize for the inconvenience caused.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-020-17788-z, published online 7 August 2020.Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliation.Affiliation 4 incorrectly read ‘Department of Medical Imaging, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’An Jiao Tong University College of Medicine, Xi’an, Shaan’Xi, China’.This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


In the article titled “A Patient with Double-Negative VGKC, Peripheral Nerve Hyperexcitability, and Central Nervous System Symptoms: A Postinfectious Autoimmune Disease” , the autFigure 3: Needle electromyogram showing spontaneous activity in the right abductor pollicis brevis muscle with fasciculations, fibrillations, and complex repetitive discharge at 90–120 Hz. Published with permission from “Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.”


Solanum lycopersicum L.) in Shewarobit, Central Ethiopia” [In the article titled “Effect of Plant Spacing on Yield and Yield Components of Tomato (thiopia” , author 2Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Adigirat University, P.O. Box: 50, Adigirat, Ethiopia.The corrected list of affiliations is shown in the author information above.


Subsequently to the publication of this article, the authors have realized that the affiliation was printed incorrectly: The institute was incorrectly printed as “The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Fujian Medical University”, whereas only the name “Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital” is approved by the authors’ hospital. Therefore, the authors’ affiliation information should have appeared as follows (changes are highlighted in bold):JINTIAN SONG, JIANWEI YANG, RONGBO LIN, XIONGCHAO CAI, LIANG ZHENG and YIGUI CHENFujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian 350014, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Abdominal Oncology, The authors apologize for this oversight on their part, and for any inconvenience caused.


EGFR Variant–Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer,”1 Dr Song’s affiliation was incorrect. He is affiliated with the School of Medical Informatics, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China. This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation published December 17, 2020, “Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Explore Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Response in Patients With Stage IV


The author list has since been corrected to Xinjing Chen, Yansong Guo, Shengli Zhang, and Zhiliang Li. The Zhiliang Li has been added as a corresponding issue. The author contribution's first sentence has also been updated from “XJC, YSG and LL designed the experiments” to “XJC, YSG, LL, and ZL designed the experiments.”In the article, “Intracoronary and peripheral blood levels of TNF-like Cytokine 1A (TL1A) in patients with acute coronary syndrome”,


The x-axis label should have been “Association between 30-d readmission rate and $1 million more in GME funding, regression coefficient.” In addition, the data markers for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, hip replacement, and hospitalwide were positioned incorrectly. This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Association of Graduate Medical Education With Hospital Performance and Patient Outcomes,”


Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum, Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2019, ojz008, https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojz008.Corrigendum to “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety” In this article, there was a typo in the original title, which read “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Plastic Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety”. The title has been corrected to “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety”.


Artemisia Spp. Derivatives for COVID-19 Treatment: Anecdotal Use, Political Hype, Treatment Potential, Challenges, and Road Map to Randomized Clinical Trials” by Kapepula and others  the structure of artesunate and the modelled structure are incorrect in In “


In , the secThe correct affiliation should be “Department of Orthopaedics, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.”The publisher apologizes for the error and any convenience it may have caused.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation “1”. Instead of “Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China”, it should be “Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Orthopaedic Research Institute/Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In this article, there was a typo in the title, which read “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety”. The title has been corrected to “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety”.Corrigendum to “American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities (AAAASF) History: Its Role in Plastic Surgery Safety” Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum, Volume 1, Issue 2, June 2019, ojz008,


In the published article, there were errors in the affiliation list.Affiliation 1, “Bio-Sciences R&D Division, TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services, Pune, India,” should appear as “Bio-Sciences R&D Division, TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Pune, India”Affiliation 2, “Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, India,” should be listed as two different affiliations: “2 Chemical Engineering and Process Development Division, CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory (NCL), Pune, India” and “3 Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad, India.”In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliations of Bhusan K. Kuntal. As well as having affiliations 1 and 2, they should also be affiliated with 3.In the published article, the Conflict of Interest statement was incorrect. It should read:All the authors were employed by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there were errors in affiliations for authors “Iksu Byeo” and “Byungwook Lee.” Instead of “Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea”, it should be “Korea BioInformation Center, Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Daejeon, South Korea” for both the authors.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


The medical definition of trauma is “any kind of intentional or unintentional, penetrating or non-penetrating injury or wound caused by external causes”. Traumatic injury is a health threat all over the world and the cause of 9% of worldwide mortality. Having a total of 258 trauma-scoring models indicates the versatile state of using trauma scores. Currently, there are no national models for prediction of trauma-caused preventable death in Iran; This study, conducted in 2018 and 2019, aimed to adapt a national model for Iran. Using appropriate keywords, the most commonly used scales for predicting death in traumatic patients were searched from literature. These included ISS, GCS, TRISS, GAP, MGAP, PTS, REMS, APACHE II, T-RTS, RTSc, NISS, MISS, and PHI. The potential trauma mortality determinants and parameters were then identified and organized in a data collection form to be measured through prospective examination of trauma cases after being assessed for its content validity. The final tool was comprised of three sections. The first section should be completed through the first day of admission to an emergency department. It included the following items: pre-hospital health services, past medical history, medication use, Glasgow Coma Scale, vital signs, routine laboratory tests in trauma, psychoactive and addictive drug history and alcohol misuse, AIS index, PTS, trauma mechanism and external cause according to International Classification of Diseases. The second section belonged to secondary evaluation 24 hours after the first evaluation and included vital signs, GCS, AIS and admission decision. The third section was for one-month follow-up and included the Glasgow Outcome Scale. The developed tool at three sections was found valid and applicable based on expert views and identified feasible through its pilot administration.Trauma score, Iran, Death, Predictors, National model


Results: The bibliographic resources regarding the use of Actovegin® in ischemic stroke are scarce. The main Actovegin® actions refer to the ischemic stroke lesion items’ ensemble, targeting tissue oxidation, energy metabolism, and glucose availability through their augmentation, combating ischemic processes and oxidative stress, and decreasing inflammation  and apoptosis-like processes, counteracting them by mitigating the caspase-3 activation induced by amyloid β-peptides. Conclusion: Since no available therapeutic agents are capable of curing the central nervous system’s lesions, any contribution, such as that of Actovegin® , is worthy of further study and periodic reappraisal, including investigation into further connected aspects.Background: Stroke is one of the largest problems and clinical-social challenges within neurology and, in general, pathology. Here, we briefly reviewed the main pathophysiological mechanisms of ischemic stroke, which represent targets for medical interventions, including for a calf blood deproteinized hemodialysate/ultrafiltrate. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of current related literature concerning the effects of Actovegin The term stroke is defined as ”…a neurological deficit attributed to an acute focal injury of the central nervous system (CNS) by a vascular cause, including cerebral infarction, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH)…” , thus co“More women than men suffer strokes due to the risks of pregnancy, childbirth, and oral contraceptive use before age 30” . SpecifiThe total number of stroke events in the European Union (EU) was 613,148 in 2015 and is estimated to increase to 819,771 in 2035 , althougRegarding the main pathophysiological mechanisms of ischemic stroke targeted in this study, as preliminary considerations, preformed tissues for specific excitability, such as neurons, and most glial and striated muscle cells do not reproduce or replicate after a person is born ,13. UndeA CNS insult entails, conditioned by complex, particular and not yet sufficiently deciphered mechanisms, a succession of local and regional damages. However, these damages have wide impacts from the intimate and genic on the body’s ensemble and systemic levels, which are classified as primary and secondary (events cascade) lesions ,16,17,18Chlamydia pneumoniae, Cytomegalovirus, and Helicobacter pylori) 78]; the ® compound, which is a pharmacological medicine with ”…pleiotropic, neuroprotective, and metabolic effects…” that “…fits this future vision of an integrated treatment paradigm” [At present, no treatment intervention is available to definitively heal CNS lesions ,80. Howearadigm” , related


Instead of “Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, Interlab-UMU, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain,” it should be:In the published article, there was an error in Affiliation “Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, Interlab-UMU, Regional Campus of International Excellence ‘Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the article titled “Protective Effects of Simvastatin, a Lipid Lowering Agent, Against Oxidative Damage in Experimental Diabetic Rats” , author “Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Women Faculty for Arts, Science and Education, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt”


Romani L, Marks M, Sokana S, et al. Feasibility and safety of mass drug coadministration with azithromycin and ivermectin for the control of neglected tropical diseases: a single-arm intervention trial. Lancet Glob Health 2018; 6: e1132–38—The trial registration number has been corrected to ACTRN12615001199505. This correction has been made as of Sept 20, 2018.


Stefania Perrucci was not included as an author in the published article. The corrected Author Contributions Statement appears below.“MP, FB, and MS: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing, writing review, and editing. MS: resources, project administration, and funding acquisition. MP, FB, AB, SC, SP, RP, and MS: investigation, data processing, visualization, supervision, writing, writing review, and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.”Also in the original article, there were errors. In the “Materials and Methods” section, some of the parasitological methods were not correctly reported, while a few words in the “Results” section should be corrected. Moreover, a few statements in the “Discussion” need to be corrected and a reference should be added in the text of the Discussion and in the reference list.Corrections have been made to “Materials and Methods,” page 3, left column, lines 3-7; “Results,” right column, lines 22 and 33; “Discussion,” page 7, right column, lines 19-22 and 31-35; and “References,” where a new reference, i.e., 54, should be added in the text and in the reference list:“In addition, deer fecal samples were examined by the Baermann technique to detect bronchopulmonary nematode larvae (21). Samples were weighted, and the number of larvae per gram (LPG) of feces was calculated.”“spp” is replaced with “spp.”“However, the prevalence and burden estimation of the identified parasites are difficult to compare with previous investigations in Italy, where sampling was performed on necropsied animals directly from the viscera .”V. capreoli infections, parasitism usually involves small reductions in the likelihood that a host will reproduce or survive, without obvious clinical symptoms .The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


The present study aimed to define the clinical and laboratory criteria for predicting patients that will not benefit from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) treatment and determine the prediction of mortality and prognosis of these critical ill patients.  The study was designed as an observational, multicenter, prospective, and cross-sectional clinical study. It was conducted by 75 researchers at 41 centers in intensive care units (ICUs) located in various geographical areas of Turkey. It included a total of 1463 ICU patients who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) treatment. A total of 158 parameters were examined via logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors for mortality; using these data, the IMV Mortality Prediction Score (IMPRES) scoring system was developed.  The following cut-off scores were used to indicate mortality risk: <2, low risk; 2–5, moderate risk; 5.1–8, high risk; >8, very high risk. There was a 26.8% mortality rate among the 254 patients who had a total IMPRES score of lower than 2. The mortality rate was 93.3% for patients with total IMPRES scores of greater than 8 (P < 0.001). The present study included a large number of patients from various geographical areas of the country who were admitted to various types of ICUs, had diverse diagnoses and comorbidities, were intubated with various indications in either urgent or elective settings, and were followed by physicians from various specialties. Therefore, our data are more general and can be applied to a broader population. This study devised a new scoring system for decision-making for critically ill patients as to whether they need to be intubated or not and presents a rapid and accurate prediction of mortality and prognosis prior to ICU admission using simple clinical data. Mortality rates in adult ICUs range from 30% to 65% [1–5]. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is often necessary during the course of serious acute pathologies such as traumas, intoxications, and infections, as well as during the course of chronic diseases such as neuromuscular disorders, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung diseases [6–8]. The criteria for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and discharge as well as indications for IMV treatment have been established . However, not all patients undergoing IMV benefit from this treatment. For such cases, IMV only helps to postpone mortality. The suspended animation state that will inevitably result in death is often spent in a sedated, comatose, and completely passive condition with a very low quality of life, which can be quite tormenting for the patient. Since patients requiring IMV are often admitted to the ICU, a significant number of the limited beds in ICUs are often occupied by patients who will not survive. Because of this, many patients with reversible conditions requiring ICU care will not have access to ICU support. Moreover, comatose patients receiving IMV can make it difficult to control serious problems in the ICU, such as nosocomial infections. Further, the relatives of these patients often have irrational hopes for recovery, which leads to prolonged IMV treatment. Many countries commonly practice the orders “do not resuscitate” (DNR) and “do not intubate” (DNI), meaning that either the patient or his/her custodian had decided to forego life-prolonging treatment when resuscitation is not expected to change the survival outcome [11]. For instance, in Taiwan, if a patient older than the age of 20 provides a written statement acknowledging his/her will to abandon medical treatment, then according to the Natural Death Act (passed in the year 2000), that patient’s doctor is not subject to legal sanction. However, DNR documents and other advance orders are not yet part of standard medical practices in low-income countries [12]. In this regard, the accurate prediction of patients that will most likely benefit from IMV is very important for clinicians when justifying IMV in emergency departments, clinics, or, sometimes at the scene of the event. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, there are no evidence-based and tangible criteria used for defining patients that will not benefit from IMV. Such criteria would save clinicians from ethical dilemmas and protect them in judicial processes.In the current study, we aimed to define criteria that will help to objectively identify patients that will not benefit from IMV treatment. With these criteria, we hope to eliminate the impact of subjective personal anticipation, the insistence and pressures of patients’ relatives, and local-cultural determinants. We hope that this study will serve to ease clinicians’ decision-making processes in the face of jurisdiction, patients’ relatives, and their own conscience, as well as aiding in objective decision-making and facilitating the more rational use of ICU beds.The STROBE guidelines were used as a guide for this manuscript. This study was designed as an observational, multicenter, prospective, and cross-sectional clinical study. The scientific ethical committee of Karadeniz Technical University’s Faculty of Medicine granted ethical approval for this study. Patients/custodians and researchers provided written consent prior to participation in this study. Researchers from various ICUs in Turkey who accepted the invitation that was distributed nationwide (via e-mail) were enrolled in the study. An online meeting was held among the participating researchers to establish the study protocol and the data collection form. The results were evaluated in an e-mail group that included all of the researchers, and the current manuscript was composed in accordance with the opinions and recommendations of all of the researchers.This study included patients who were receiving IMV treatment in ICUs. This was completely an observational study, and no extra interventions were applied to the patients. Bedside data collection forms that were created specifically for this study were filled out by researchers for all patients who stayed in the ICU for more than 24 h and received IMV support. At the end of each month, data from patients who were discharged from the ICU within that month were collected from every center. Patients who died during their ICU stay were categorized as the group that did not benefit from IMV, while the surviving patients  were categorized as the group that benefited from IMV. This study excluded patients who were admitted to the pediatric ICU, neonatal ICU, or postanesthesia care units and those who were younger than 18 years old. For every patient, we collected demographical data, the type of the ICU to which they were admitted, primary indications for ICU admission, comorbid diseases, place of intubation , urgency of intubation , and the physician who decided on intubation and intubation indications. Additionally, we evaluated the possible patient-related factors that were considered by the physician as an indicator that IMV would most likely not benefit a patient (Table 1) .For all patients, we recorded the condition at discharge , reintubation requirement, mechanical ventilation duration, and ICU stay length. On the first day of ICU admission, we calculated the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II (APACHE-II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores for each patient .All data for this study were analyzed with IBM SPSS 23 statistics software. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the numerical data. Nonnormally distributed numerical data were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U test via nonparametric methods. Comparisons of categorical data were made with the Pearson chi-square test. Independent risk factors for mortality were determined with binary logistic regression analysis. For those risk factors found to be significant via logistic regression analysis, odds ratio (OR) values were used to calculate the IMV Mortality Prediction Score (IMPRES). The chi-square test was used to compare mortality rates among groups after risk stratification. Numerical data were expressed as medians (min–max), while categorical data were presented as frequencies (percentages). Values of P < 0.05 were considered significant.The study was conducted with the participation of 75 researchers from 41 distinct centers  located in various geographical areas of Turkey. Data collection was performed from 1 January 2017 to 30 April 2017. A total of 1463 patients receiving IMV treatment in 11 different types of ICUs located in these centers during the study period were enrolled in this study. Of these patients, 625 (42.7%) were female and 838 (57.3%) were male. The median patient age was 71 years (18–101 years), and the median body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/m2 (14–76 kg/m2). Of the patients, 639 (43.7%) were from university hospitals, 530 (36.2%) were from training and research hospitals, 220 (15%) were from state hospitals, and 74 (5.1%) were from private hospitals. Of the patients, 762 (52.1%) were followed by attending physicians other than an ICU specialist, 397 (27.2%) were followed by an ICU specialist/fellowship trainer, and 304 (20.8%) were followed by an ICU physician in-chief. The type of ICU was general ICU for 429 (29.3%) patients, anesthesiology and reanimation ICU for 268 (18.3%) patients, medical ICU for 210 (14.4%) patients, and pulmonary diseases ICU for 154 (10.5%) patients. Other ICU types included surgical ICUs, emergency departments, and neurological, neurosurgical, internal diseases, coronary, and cardiovascular ICUs. Table 2 presents the clinical features of the patients.Of the patients, 823 (56.3%) were intubated in an urgent condition, while 640 (43.7%) were intubated in an elective condition. The most common place where intubation was performed was ICUs (797 (54.5%) patients), followed by emergency departments (393 (26.9%) patients), hospital wards (156 (10.7%) patients), event scene (57 (3.9%) patients), and other locations (60 (4.0%) patients). During their ICU stay, 197 (13.5%) patients required reintubation. With regard to patient outcomes, 880 (60.2%) patients died during their ICU stay, while the rest of the patients were discharged from the ICU with the following conditions: successful weaning/extubation (368 (25.2%) patients), mechanical ventilator dependence/tracheostomy (168 (11.5%) patients), and referral or transfer to other ICUs (47 (3.2%) patients).When comparing the nonsurvival and survival groups, patient age was significantly higher in the mortality group (P < 0.001). However, there was no difference in mortality rate between the sexes (P = 0.161). Patient mortality was also evaluated according to the acute conditions presenting as ICU admission indications. While mortality rates were lower among patients with type II (P = 0.026) and type III respiratory failure (P < 0.001), they were significantly higher among those admitted to the ICU after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P < 0.001), circulatory shock (P < 0.001), distributive shock (P = 0.016), circulatory failure (P = 0.013), and severe electrolyte imbalance (P < 0.001). The diagnosis of type I respiratory failure did not cause any significant difference in mortality (P = 0.165). In terms of intubation indications, mortality was seen in 219 (73.2%) of 299 patients intubated after cardiac arrest (P < 0.001) and in 106 (51%) of 208 patients intubated after a failed attempt at noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (P = 0.003). The mortality rate did not differ according to whether the intubation was performed in an urgent or elective condition. Mortality was seen in 500 (60.8%) of 823 patients intubated in urgent settings and in 380 (59.4%) of 640 patients intubated in elective settings (P = 0.401). Characteristic properties of patients in the nonsurvival and survival groups are presented in Table 3.A total of 158 parameters were examined via logistic regression analysis with the backward Wald method. The variables that were identified as independent risk factors for mortality are listed in Table 4. The OR values for every parameter were used to develop the IMPRES. Since not all of the parameters would have the same effect on mortality, we utilized the OR values calculated with the logistic regression analysis in this model, as these values are the best statistics for representing this difference. Logistic regression analysis identified the following independent risk factors: age, pulmonary edema, COPD exacerbation, interstitial lung disease, acute renal failure, sepsis, metabolic encephalopathy, neurodegenerative disease, ICU-level nursing care requirement, type III respiratory failure, heart failure, lung cancer, cardiac arrest, and conditions suggesting to the physician that IMV is unlikely to benefit the patient , life expectancy shorter than 6 months, permanent multiorgan failure, low chance of recovery despite the benefits gained, high treatment cost in proportion to the benefits gained, terminal stage chronic disease/malignancy). While ‘ICU-level nursing care requirement’ and ‘interstitial lung disease’ had the greatest effects on mortality , the presence of ‘COPD exacerbation’, ‘pulmonary edema’, and ‘heart failure’ had negative impacts on the score . The scoring for each parameter is presented in Table 4.The total score for each patient was calculated using the OR values of the independent risk factors that were significant via logistic regression analysis. Cut-off points were determined for the total score. To determine the cut-off points, two initial categories were formed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Consequently, an ordinal structure was applied to further categorize the groups as low, moderate, high, and very high risk, so that the mortality rate would increase from the low to the very high risk groups and differ between the categories. Accordingly, the following cut-off scores were obtained: <2, low risk; 2–5, moderate risk; 5.1–8, high risk; >8: very high risk.After scoring for all of the risk factors that were found to be significant via logistic regression analysis, 1463 patients were categorized in an ordinal manner according to the cut-off scores presented above. Mortality rates were compared between these risk categories and the results are given in the Figure. Mortality was seen in 26.8% of the 254 patients with a total score of lower than 2. The mortality rate was 58.2% among patients with a total score between 2 and 5, 76.3% among patients with a total score between 5.1 and 8, and 93.3% among patients with a total score of greater than 8. The increase in the mortality rate according to the risk categories was statistically significant .Physicians experience a dilemma with some patients, having to decide whether or not to initiate IMV treatment. Despite the belief that IMV will not benefit the patient, the physician may feel obligated to intubate the patient due to the insistence of the patient’s relatives, local-cultural factors, or judicial pressures. Although indications for intubation and IMV have been defined, evidence-based recommendations about patients that will not benefit from IMV and those that should not be intubated are still lacking. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine criteria that can predict which patients will not benefit from IMV. The main objective of this study was to determine a method of making rapid and accurate predictions of mortality/prognosis prior to ICU admission using simple clinical features and thus to define “priority” patients for IMV in order to facilitate the more effective use of available ICU bed capacity.An ideal scoring system should accurately predict mortality, and the actual mortality should be close to the predicted mortality. The calculation should be convenient and be based on readily available clinical parameters without the need for advanced laboratory investigation. Scoring systems designed for the objective assessment of the clinical severity and prediction of prognosis and mortality in ICU patients are currently being used for the standardization of research and for making comparisons of the quality of care given to ICU patients. Among these, the APACHE score (I–IV) uses the worst physiological values measured within 24 h of ICU admission [16–21]. The Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score uses patient data within the first 24 h of ICU admission and every subsequent 48 h [22], while updated versions of the Simplified Acute Physiological Score (SAPS II–III)  and Mortality Prediction Model  use data collected within the first hour of ICU admission [25–28]. These scoring systems have both advantages and disadvantages. For example, APACHE IV was developed with data collected only from hospitals in the United States and requires complex patient data. In addition, despite being developed with data collected from 35 different countries, some regional equations were developed using a relatively low sample size . When using the existing scoring systems, clinicians should be aware of the limitations related with their unique patient populations. For instance, SAPS-III yields relatively lower mortality rates for patients with cancer or solid organ transplants, whereas SOFA can be more helpful in a population with sepsis [30–32]. The present study was unique in that it included a large number of patients from various geographical areas of Turkey who were admitted to various types of ICUs, had diverse diagnoses and comorbidities, were intubated with various indications in either urgent or elective settings, and were followed by physicians from various specialties. Therefore, we believe that our data are more general and can be applied to a broader population. Moreover, the existing scoring systems do not allow for the prediction of mortality based only on the patient’s simple clinical findings; rather, they require further laboratory investigations and 24–48 h of monitoring. However, physicians who are uncertain of whether or not to intubate require a rapid and accurate prediction of mortality based on simple clinical findings. Unfortunately, the scoring systems mentioned above do not completely satisfy this need. Indeed, we believe that our simple scoring system , which was developed based on the available data, may satisfy this need. One unique feature of the IMPRES scoring system is that it also takes the physician’s anticipations and personal experiences into account in the prediction of prognosis/mortality. Rather than being a laboratory-based calculation, this scoring system prioritizes the patient’s primary diagnosis and acute needs requiring intensive care. Additionally, in the current study, the APACHE-II and SOFA scores were significantly higher in the mortality group, as expected (P < 0.001).Many published studies have evaluated the factors associated with mortality in ICU patients. Lee et al. found that age, sex, Deyo–Charlson comorbidity index, teaching hospital, hospital level, hospital volume, and physician volume were significantly associated with mechanical ventilation outcome (P < 0.001). The ICU patient population generally consists of elderly patients. In our current study, the median age of the whole study group was 71 (18–101) years, and 67.9% of these patients were older than 65 years. One population-based cohort study from Taiwan retrospectively analyzed 213,945 patients. In this large series, all of the patients had a mechanical ventilation requirement, and 79.7% were over 65 years old [33]. One study from the United States reported that 48% of ICU patients were over 65 years old, while this rate was 38% in a study conducted in Paris . The reason that our current study and the study from Taiwan had such high rates of elderly patients may be because these studies only included patients receiving IMV. Patients receiving IMV support are generally older because the incidence of acute respiratory failure increases significantly with every 10-year increment in age until age 85. Indeed, the incidence of acute respiratory failure in the age group of 65–84 years is 2 times higher than that of patients aged 55–64 years and 3 times higher than that of younger patients [36]. Previous studies have reported that age over 85 years is an independent factor for not being accepted to the ICU. However, there is still no global consensus regarding the admission of elderly patients (over 70–80 years) to the ICU [37]. Of our total study patients, 60.2% died during their ICU stay. Such a high mortality rate can be explained by the fact that this study had high average ICU APACHE-II and SOFA scores, and all of the patients included in this study had a mechanical ventilation requirement. General adult ICU mortality rates in the literature vary between 30% and 65% depending on the selected patient population [1–5]. Many previous studies have found that acute organ dysfunction is associated with short-term ICU mortality . A review of the available data shows that there is much heterogeneity in ICU admission criteria. The heterogeneous group of patients included in the present study enabled us to examine the predictive values of many diagnoses in relation to IMV prognosis. For example, patients with pulmonary edema, COPD exacerbation, metabolic encephalopathy, and neurodegenerative diseases benefitted from mechanical ventilation. Knowing the predictive value of a patient’s primary diagnosis when deciding on IMV or ICU admission would be quite helpful for triage, or the sorting of patients considering their chance of recovery. Patients have ICU admission priority if they have severely disturbed overall conditions, are unstable, and require advanced monitoring and treatment that cannot be provided outside of the ICU. Patients with ICU admission priority include postoperative patients requiring ventilator support and treatments such as vasoactive drug infusion and patients with acute respiratory failure, hemodynamic instability, shock, severe sepsis or sepsis-septic shock, severe trauma, and hypoxia or hypotension . There are ongoing discussions as to whether patients admitted to the ICU should have a reasonable survival expectancy and whether the patient should possess a neuropsychiatric status that is sufficient to comprehend this support. In fact, this opinion was expressed in the joint consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine [10] Ethics Committee as follows: “The primary goal of intensive care is to provide treatment to a patient with a reasonable survival expectancy beyond the acute treatment, who has adequate cognitive skills to comprehend the benefits of treatment. Intensive care interventions should be regarded as futile when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will recover to survive beyond the acute care, or when the patient’s neurological functions are not fit to perceive the benefits of treatment” [40]. However, these recommendations are not based on any legislative regulations in Turkey, nor in many other countries. Physicians facing problems associated with the allocation of ICU beds for patients with low survival expectancy do not currently have the scientific evidence to aid in identifying the priority patients that they require in the face of ethics and the law. Even if a physician believes that IMV is not likely to be of any benefit to a patient, he or she may feel obliged to intubate the patient due to the lack of scientific evidence. Nevertheless, our findings may need to be verified in specialized ICUs that care for specific patient populations , or in institutions or regions where a specific disorder is prevalent .In conclusion, IMPRES takes various data into account, including the physician’s subjective anticipation of the patient’s survival. We believe that IMPRES can help physicians make a correct assessment of the patient regarding prognosis and survival at the bedside prior to deciding whether or not to intubate without requiring any further time-consuming investigations. In consideration of our heterogeneous study population, we believe that IMPRES can be used without influence arising from the type of ICU or the differences in patient populations. We would like to acknowledge the Lung Health and the Intensive Care Society for their scientific support (announcement of the project to the members and promoting participation). The Lung Health and the Intensive Care Society did not provide financial support for the study. We also acknowledge the Writing Committee Members for the IMVICAP Study Group, as follows: Onur Palabıyık, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Mustafa Çörtük, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey; Recai Ergün, Department of Chest Diseases, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Betül Kozanhan, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey; Özlem Erçen Diken, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey; Feza Bacakoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey; Süheyla Uzun, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey; İskender Aksoy, Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey; Hakan Cinemre, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Avşar Zerman, Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey; Adnan Usalan, Department of Chest Diseases, Tarsus Medical Park Hospital, Mersin, Turkey; Işıl Özkoçak Turan, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey; Esra Özdemir, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, İzzet Baysal State Hospital, Bolu, Turkey; Nevin Fazlıoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Turkey; Fatma Yıldırım, Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Chest Diseases, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Ersin Günay, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; Nafiye Yılmaz, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey; Bilgehan Atılgan Acar, Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Belgin Akan, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Hüseyin Arpağ, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey; Cengizhan Sezgi, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey; Atilla Can, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey; Murat Yalçınsoy, Department of Chest Diseases, Turgut Özal Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey; Selen Karaoğlanoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, Ordu Training and Research Hospital, Ordu, Turkey; Abidin Şehitoğulları, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Sertaç Arslan, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey; Yusuf Aydemir, Department of Chest Diseases, Sakarya Training and Research Hospital, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Ayperi Öztürk, Department of Chest Diseases and Interventional Pulmonology, Ankara Atatürk Chest Disease and Thoracic Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; İclal Hocanlı, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Harran University, Şanlıurfa, Turkey; Bülent Tutluoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, International Acıbadem Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey; Firuz Çapraz, Department of Chest Diseases, Marmaris State Hospital, Muğla, Turkey; Musa Salmanoğlu, Department of Internal Medicine, İstanbul Sultan Abdülhamid Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey; Aydanur Ekici, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey; Naci Murat, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey; Hatice Şahin, Department of Chest Diseases, Necip Fazıl City Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey; Sena Ataman, Department of Chest Diseases, İzmir Dr Suat Seren Thoracic Diseases and Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey; Özlem Edipoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, Division of Intensive Care Medicine, İzmir Dr Suat Seren Thoracic Diseases and Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey; Tekin Yıldız, Department of Chest Diseases, Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Bursa, Turkey; Zahide Doğanay, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun, Turkey; Celalettin Dağlı, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Medicana Faculty of Medicine, Karatay University, Konya, Turkey; Esra Arslan Aksu, Department of Chest Diseases, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun, Turkey; Burçak Zitouni, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey; Ayşe İlksen Eğilmez, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey; Yeliz Şahiner, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey; Pervin Korkmaz Ekren, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey; Zerrin Gürel Durmuş, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey; Handan İnönü Köseoğlu, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey; Ahmet Baydın, Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey; Ahmet Nalbant, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Davut Aydın, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey; Ahmet Bindal, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey; Şener Balas, Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Chest Diseases, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Şule Esen Karamişe, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; Ömer Araz, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey; Türkan Acar, Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Hasan Kahraman, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey; Melike Demir, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey; Cengiz Burnik, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey; Ebru Çanakçı, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ordu Training and Research Hospital, Ordu, Turkey; Cahit Bilgin, Department of Chest Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey; Özgür Yağan, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey; Semih Aydemir, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Atatürk Pulmonology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; Bülent Güçyetmez, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, International Acıbadem Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey; Mine Özgün Benli, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Marmaris State Hospital, Muğla, Turkey; Yalçın Önem, Department of Internal Medicine, İstanbul Sultan Abdülhamid Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey.Tevfik Özlü and Mehtap Pehlivanlar Küçük personally reviewed the efficacy data, understand the statistical methods employed for efficacy analysis, and confirm an understanding of this analysis, that the methods are clearly described, and that they are a fair way to report the results.Tevfik Özlü and Mehtap Pehlivanlar Küçük personally reviewed the safety data. They understand the statistical methods employed for safety analysis and confirm that they understand this analysis, that the methods are clearly described, and that they are a fair way to report the results.Tevfik Özlü and Mehtap Pehlivanlar Küçük confirm that the study objectives and procedures are honestly disclosed. Moreover, they reviewed the study execution data and confirm that procedures were followed to an extent that convinces all authors that the results are valid and generalizable to a population similar to that enrolled in this study.Mehtap Pehlivanlar Küçük had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors contributed substantially to the development of the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript by participating in researchers’ meetings held online during the study. All authors enrolled their own institution’s patients for the study.All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.


The article titled “Evaluation of Lung and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Oxidative Stress Indices for Assessing the Preventing Effects of Safranal on Respiratory Distress in Diabetic Rats”  was founJournal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (2013), 16 (2). pp. 352–362.Saeed Samarghandian, Abasalt Borji, Mohammad Bagher Delkhosh, and Fariborz Samini, “Safranal treatment improves hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and oxidative stress in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats,” The authors do not agree to the publication of this corrigendum. In the previous article , blood w


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 5. Instead of “Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University Severance Children's Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea”, it should be “Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea”.In the published article, an author name was incorrectly written as “Geum Hwa Lee”. The correct spelling is “Keum Hwa Lee”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Also, for compounds 11–13 in In the original publication , there w


In the published article, there was an error in the author list, and author Mari Munk was erroneously excluded. The corrected author list appears below.1*, Madis Vasser1, Kadi Tulver1, Mari Munk2, Juhan Pikamäe1, 3 and Jaan Aru1*Karl Kristjan Kaup1Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia2Psychiatry Clinic of North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia3Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, Tartu, EstoniaThe authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) has been widely used to relieve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in many countries. However, a bibliometric analysis of published articles discussing this treatment has not been conducted. This study aimed to explore the current status and trends of TwHF for treating RA. Literature was extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded Database of the Web of Science from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2022. CiteSpace and the “bibliometrix” package were adopted to analyze the number of publications, countries, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords and to draw collaborative network maps. One hundred sixty-seven articles were identified. China has the most articles, followed by the United States. The China Academy of Chinese Medical Science had the study’s most significant publications and the highest centrality. The author analysis combined with the analysis of the cited authors, the rank of Lin Na is in an important position. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Frontiers in Pharmacology has published the most relevant articles and is the hottest related journal. For keyword analysis, “classification,” “criteria,” “mechanism,” and “methotrexate” were still being researched hot until 2022. Further investigation showed that “TNF-α,” “proliferation,” “endothelial growth factor,” “NF-κB,” and “collagen-induced arthritis” also remains research hotspot. Our results provide information on the research status, institutions, countries, authors, published journals, keywords related to using TwHF to treat RA, and theoretical support for further research. Genetics, female sex, and environmental factors are risk factors affecting the development of RA. Environmental factors include smoking, infectious agents, silica exposure, obesity, and changes in the microbiota. Uncontrolled RA causes joint damage, disability, and decreased quality of life.Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterized by joint pain, swelling, and stiffness. are effective for treating RA; however, their long-term use can lead to adverse consequences. Because of the insufficient response to these drugs and their related adverse events, novel drugs for treating RA are urgently needed.Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) is a traditional Chinese medicine with immunosuppressive effects that can activate blood circulation and collaterals, resist rheumatism, and relieve pain and swelling.TwHF shows therapeutic effects for many diseases, such as Crohn disease and multiple autoimmune diseases.–7 Moreover, TwHF shows superior effects compared to methotrexate monotherapy and combination therapy with methotrexate and TwHF in controlling disease activity in patients with active RA.,9 The immunosuppressive, cartilage protective, and anti-inflammatory effects of TwHF extract have been well demonstrated, and TwHF extract is an alternative DMARDs suitable for traditional treatment of refractory RA patients. Further research on the mechanism of action of TwHF in RA is necessary to enhance efficacy and reduce toxicity. CiteSpace software can generate and analyze co-citation networks based on bibliographic records retrieved from the Web of Science. The Web of Science database used by Citespace is recognized as an authoritative citation document retrieval tool by the global academic community and is suitable for retrospective citation retrieval. Because of its academic nature and authority, the Web of Science database cannot index the many nontraditional forms of academic literature published online. Thus the comprehensiveness of its use for citation retrieval is limited.Bibliometrics is a discipline that applies quantitative methods such as mathematics and statistics to examine the distribution rules, quantitative relations of documents, and internal relations between documents based on the system and measurement characteristics.TwHF for treating RA.In this study, CiteSpace and R software were used to conduct bibliometric analysis including annual publications; most productive and influential countries, institutions, authors, journals; keywords to explore the current status, hotspots, and research trends of Tripterygium wilfordii” OR “Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F” were used as search terms. The document types were “article” and “review.” The document language is “English.” Repeated documents and those unrelated to the subject of the search were excluded , Excel2016, and R software (https://www.r-project.org/) were used for bibliometric analysis. The literature filtered from the Web of Science was saved in plain text and named download_**.txt. The Citespace software parameter settings included the following: Time slicing was from 2013 to 2022; Term source selected the Title, Abstract, Author Keywords (DE), Keywords Plus (ID); Term Type selected no terms; Links and Selection Criteria were used with default settings; and Pruning selected the Pathfinder and Pruning sliced networks.Citespace 6.2.R4 , followed by the United States (n = 13), Australia (n = 4), and Germany (n = 4) , Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 14), Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 12), China Pharmaceutical University (n = 11), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Peking Union Medical College (n = 11). Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine CACMS (n = 11) , Jiang Quan (n = 7), Zhang Luyong (n = 6), Jiang Zhenzhou (n = 6), Lin Na (n = 4) Fig. A. The ciTwHF for treating RA. The top 5 journals by number of publications are Frontiers in Pharmacology (n = 14), Journal of Ethnopharmacology (n = 11), Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (n = 10), International Immunopharmacology (n = 6), Acta Medica Mediterranea (n = 4) .A total of 100 journals have published articles on logy n = , Acta Me,16 the top journals were the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Frontiers in Pharmacology, Evidence-based Complementary ,Tripterygium wilfordii (141), triptolide (140), expression (59), and cell (52).The distribution of the keyword co-appearance network map Fig. A consist The value of cluster Q was 0.3 ≥ 0.3, and that of cluster S was 0.8 > 0.7, indicating that the cluster structure is significant and the cluster is convincing. The clusters were #0 Tripterygium wilfordii, #1 clinical trial, #2 toxicity, #3 synoviocytes, #4 angiogenesis, #5 glomerulonephritis, #6 collagen-induced arthritis, #7 apoptosis, #8 migration, #9 interleukin-6 #10 T-cells, and #11 anti-inflammation  and Journal of Ethnopharmacology (IF = 5.4) ranked at the top. Studies of RA treatment with TwHF, keywords such as expression and cells were essential in the keyword co-occurrence network. Thus, studies mainly involved target cells and related genes and cytokines of TwHF during RA treatment.,28–30 Based on keyword co-occurrence analysis, keyword clustering analysis was carried out. #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11 are mainly studies of the mechanism of TwHF for treating RA, and #2 and #5 are mainly studies of the side effects of TwHF. “classification”, “criteria”, “mechanism”, and “methotrexate” were still being researched hot until 2022. Further analysis showed that “TNF-α”, “proliferation”, “endothelial growth factor”, “NF-κB”, and “collagen-induced arthritis” also remains research hotspot. Triptolide, an effective component of TwHF, has been shown to reduce the levels of TNF-α, CXCL2, and VEGF in arthritis model. Meanwhile, triptolide inhibited the NF-κB signaling pathways, which in turn improved the RA joint inflammation and fixed immune imbalance.In addition to RA and TwHF in RA, providing a reference for interested researchers. In terms of clinical research, the different therapeutic effects of TwHF on various classification of RA can serve as a research direction. In terms of mechanism research, the classic pathway “NF-κB,” as well as TNF-α and VEGF, still have the potential to be further explored.In summary, through our bibliometric analysis, we have made a visual summary of the research on There were some limitations to our study. First, we only searched the Web of Science database, and thus the literature collection may not be comprehensive. Second, we used manual keyword combinations and screening for the collected literature; however, this did not affect the results of our study.Conceptualization: Wenyuan Li.Data curation: Chuanzhu Yan, Dongqing Du.Investigation: Chuanzhu Yan.Methodology: Wenyuan Li.Software: Wenyuan Li, Chuanzhu Yan.Supervision: Yuxia Ma.Visualization: Wenyuan Li.Writing – original draft: Wenyuan Li.Writing – review & editing: Dongqing Du, Yuxia Ma.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliations 1, 2, and 3 Instead of “National Institute of Gastroenterology “S. de Bellis” Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy,” the institution should be “National Institute of Gastroenterology, IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Bari, Italy”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


International Journal of Epidemiology, 2023, dyad043, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyad043This is a correction to: Tom Norris, Antoine Salzmann, Albert Henry, Victoria Garfield, Snehal M Pinto Pereira, The relationship between adiposity and cognitive function: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study in UK Biobank, In the originally published version of this manuscript the “Author Notes” in the online version mistakenly said “Albert Henry and Snehal M Pinto Pereira Joint senior authors.” This should have stated “Victoria Garfield and Snehal M Pinto Pereira Joint senior authors.”This error has been corrected.


Incorrect AffiliationIn the published article, there was an error in affiliations 1,2. Instead of “1 Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Qingdao University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, 2 Nephrology Center, Department of Nephrology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Affiliated People’s Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China”, it should be “1 Urology & Nephrology Center, Department of Nephrology, Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital , Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, 2 Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, Qingdao University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Hammerton G, Lewis G, Heron J, Fernandes G, Hickman M, Lewis G. The association of alcohol dependence and consumption during adolescence with depression in young adulthood, in England: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry 10: 490–982023; —In this Article, Prof Glyn Lewis's affiliation should have been “Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK”. This correction has been made to the online version as of June 9, 2023 and will be made to the printed version.


Dr Pilato’s affiliation should have been Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ms Jedlicka’s affiliation should have been Samuel J. Wood Library, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. This article has been corrected.1In the Original Investigation titled “Reported Methods, Distributions, and Frequencies of Torture Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,”


In the published article, there was an error regarding the affiliation for “Lucia Cenni.”3 Ethology Unit, Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy,” she should also have had affiliations “4 Applied Ecology Research Unit, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Trento, Italy” and “5 Conservation Genomics Research Unit, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Trento, Italy.”As well as having affiliation “The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 1. Instead of “Department of Cardiology, Dalian Medical College, Dalian, China”, it should be “Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China”.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Dr Kosar should only be affiliated with Brown University, and Drs Berry, Gouskova, and Shi should be affiliated with Hebrew SeniorLife and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School. In addition, a middle initial for Sarah D. Berry was added. This error has been corrected.The Research Letter titled, “Post–Acute Care Rehabilitation Services and Outcomes in Skilled Nursing Facilities Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic,”


In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 1. Instead of “Department of Gastroenterology, The First Peoples’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”, it should be “Department of Gastroenterology, The First People’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 3. Instead of “Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Peoples’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”, it should be “Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First People’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”.In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 5. Instead of “Department of Anesthesiology, The First Peoples’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”, it should be “Department of Anesthesiology, The First People’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China.”.In the published article, there was an error in the Funding statement. Instead of “National Science Foundation of Hunan Province” it should be “Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province”. The correct Funding statement appears below.


In the published article, there were errors in the author affiliations list. Instead of1Laboratory of Experimental Oncology, National Institute of Gastroenterology, “Saverio de Bellis” Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 2National Institute of Gastroenterology, “Saverio de Bellis” Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 3Scientific Direction, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 4Medical Oncology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology, “Saverio de Bellis” Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 5Complex Operating Unit Oncologia, Local Health Authority Napoli 2 Nord, P.O. “S.M. delle Grazie”, Naples, Italy; 6Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Study of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy”, the author list should have been “1Laboratory of Experimental Oncology, National Institute of Gastroenterology - IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 2Data Science Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology - IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 3Scientific Direction, National Institute of Gastroenterology - IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 4Medical Oncology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology - IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italy; 5Complex Operating Unit Oncologia, Local Health Authority Napoli 2 Nord, P.O. “S.M. delle Grazie”, Naples, Italy; 6Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Study of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy”.“The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Author list, and author “Qinwen Liu” was erroneously not listed as a co-first author. The corrected author list appears below.In the published article, there was an error in the †, Kexin Wang†, Qinwen Liu†, Yi Li†, Yingying Huang, Yujie Liu, Jieqi Cai, Chuanhui Yin, Xiaowei Li, Hailang Yu, Wei Meng, Handuo Wang, Aiping Lu*, Yazi Li*, Daogang Guan*.”“Jie WuThe authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Affiliation [2]. Instead of “Purification Process Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals Development, Gaithersburg, MD, United States” it should be “Purification Process Sciences, BioPharmaceuticals Development, R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, United States”.In the published article, there was an error in The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.


Instead of “Jian Qu6,7*” it should be “Jian Qu7*”. Jian Qu’s correct affiliation is “7Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha, China” and the following affiliation is incorrect and should be removed “6Hunan Key Laboratory of the Research and Development of Novel Pharmaceutical Preparations, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China”.In the published article, there was an error regarding the The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.