Corrigendum: Predictive and prognostic nomogram models for liver metastasis in colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a large population study
Xiao Lei, Yanwei Su, Rui Lei, Dongyang Zhang, Zimeng Liu, Xiangke Li, Minjie Yang, Jiaxin Pei, Yanyan Chi, Lijie Song
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1Peer 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
TopicsNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances · Lung Cancer Research Studies · Neuroblastoma Research and Treatments
In the published article, there was an error in the legend of Figure 2A as published. Due to the change of the website name, the QR code in the original picture has become invalid. The corrected figure and its caption appear below.
In the published article, there were some language errors. Due to these errors, several mistakes occurred in the original text.
- A correction has been made to the Abstract, Results:, Lines 2 to 5.
This sentence previously stated:
“The result of multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that histologic type, tumor grade, T stage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, and tumor size were independent predictive factors for LM in patients with CRNENs (p < 0.05).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The result of multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that histologic type, tumor grade, T stage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, surgery, and tumor size were independent predictive factors for LM in patients with CRNENs (p < 0.05).”
- A correction has been made to Result, 3.2 Risk factors and predictive nomogram for LM in CRNETs, 3.2.1 Risk factors analysis of LM in CRNETs.
This sentence previously stated:
“The results of univariate logistic demonstrate that age, gender, race, histologic type, Grade, Tstage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, and tumor size are factors related to the occurrence of LM in patients with CRNENs (Table 3; p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic analysis results revealed that histologic type, Grade, T stage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, and tumor size are the independent influencing factors for LM in patients with CRNENs (Table 3). In contrast, the histological type (8240;8244;8510) may be the protective indicator (Table 3; OR < 1;p < 0.05).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“The results of univariate logistic demonstrate that age, gender, race, histologic type, Grade, T stage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, surgery, and tumor size are factors related to the occurrence of LM in patients with CRNENs (Table 3; p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic analysis results revealed that histologic type, Grade, T stage, N stage, lung metastasis, bone metastasis, surgery, and tumor size are the independent influencing factors for LM in patients with CRNENs (Table 3).
In contrast, the histological type (8240;8244;8510) and surgery may be the protective indicator (Table 3; OR < 1;p < 0.05).”
- A correction has been made to Result, 3.2 Risk factors and predictive nomogram for LM in CRNETs.
This sub-headings previously stated:
“3.2 Risk factors and predictive nomogram for LM in CRNETs
3.2.1 Risk factors analysis of LM in CRNETs
3.2.2 The predictive nomogram for LM in CRNETs”
The corrected sub-headings appears below:
“3.2 Risk factors and predictive nomogram for LM in CRNENs
3.2.1 Risk factors analysis of LM in CRNENs
3.2.2 The predictive nomogram for LM in CRNENs”
4.A correction has been made to Result, 3.3 Prognostic factors and nomogram for LM-CRNENs, 3.3.1 Prognostic factors analysis of LM-CRNENs.
This sentence previously stated:
“Primary tumors originating in the rectum, histologic types 8240 and 8510, surgery, and chemotherapy were considered protective factors in prognosis (Table 4; HR < 1, p > 0.05). ”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“Primary tumors originating in the rectum, histologic types 8240 and 8510, surgery, and chemotherapy were considered protective factors in prognosis (Table 4; HR < 1, p<0.05). ”
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.