Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
In the Original Investigation titled “Organ Preservation and Survival by Clinical Response Grade in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the OPRA Randomized Clinical Trial,”^1^ published January 9, 2024, there was an error in the penultimate paragraph of the Results, in which the 95% CI for risk of local regrowth at 2 years among patients with a clinical complete response was incorrectly reported as 70% to 85% rather than 13% to 27%. This article has been corrected.^1^
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Thompson HM, Omer DM, Lin S, ; OPRA Consortium. Organ preservation and survival by clinical response grade in patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy: a secondary analysis of the OPRA randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e 2350903. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.5090338194231 PMC 10777257 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗