Author Correction: Risk factors and an optimized prediction model for urosepsis in diabetic patients with upper urinary tract stones
Chongxiang Gao, Jiancen Liu, Dejuan Wang, Minghui Liu, Jianguang Qiu
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
TopicsKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments · Urinary Tract Infections Management · Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Correction to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-025-91787-2, published online 10 March 2025
The original version of this Article contained a repeated error, where Reference 18 was incorrectly cited.
As a result, in the Methods section, under the subheading ‘Patients’,
“The qSOFA score criteria are as follows: (1) systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg; (2) respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths per minute; (3) altered mental status, with a Glasgow Coma Scale score < 13, where each assessment criterion is assigned a score of 1, and the total score ranges from 0 to 3^18^.”
now reads:
“The qSOFA score criteria are as follows: (1) systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg; (2) respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths per minute; (3) altered mental status, with a Glasgow Coma Scale score < 13, where each assessment criterion is assigned a score of 1, and the total score ranges from 0 to 3^8^.”
Also, in the Discussion section,
“Compared to SIRS criteria, the SOFA and qSOFA scores according to the Sepsis-3 guidelines have been proven to have higher sensitivity and specificity, better predicting the prognosis of patients with sepsis^18^.”
now reads:
“Compared to SIRS criteria, the SOFA and qSOFA scores according to the Sepsis-3 guidelines have been proven to have higher sensitivity and specificity, better predicting the prognosis of patients with sepsis^8^.”
Consequently, References have been renumbered accordingly.
The original Article has been corrected.