Corrigendum: Can ChatGPT help patients understand radiopharmaceutical extravasations?
Madeleine Alvarez
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
TopicsChemotherapy-related skin toxicity · Neutropenia and Cancer Infections · Neuroblastoma Research and Treatments
In the published article, the URLs for References 5, 6, and 7 were missing. The references and the added links appear below:
-
Misadministration Reporting Requirements. 45 Fed. Reg. (May 14, 1980): 31701–31705. Available from: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/fedreg/fr045/fr045095/fr045095.pdf
-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Federal Register—Reporting Nuclear Medicine Injection Extravasations as Medical Events. (2022). p. 80474. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/30/2022-28356/reporting-nuclear-medicine-injection-extravasations-as-medical-events
-
NRC. secy-22-0043: petition for rulemaking and rulemaking plan on reporting nuclear medicine injection extravasations as medical events. (2022). Available from: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/med-use-toolkit/reporting-nuclear-medicine-injection-extravasations.html
In the published article, there were errors in the links for footnotes 18, 19, and 20 and these did not resolve. The corrected footnote URLs appear below:
Footnote 18
Footnote 19
Footnote 20 (Same as 19)
In the published article, there was an error in the cited statistics and the source associated with Footnote 13. The incorrect citation resulted from human error in our reference management process. Specifically, the wrong link was inadvertently transferred into the final paper from our list of footnote links. Upon further review, we also discovered that the proper link for the 2023 Klick Health study did not contain the original data we referenced. Despite these errors, the main point made in the original paragraph—that consumers are relatively comfortable with AI playing a role in healthcare—remains relevant and important to our discussion. Therefore, the paragraph has been revised accordingly, and a new, accurate footnote has been provided to support our statement.
A correction has been made to Discussion, Paragraph Three. This sentence previously stated:
“According to a 2023 study by Klick Health^13^, 79% of U.S. consumers are willing to use AI for their healthcare needs, and 45% believe AI will have a significant impact on healthcare.”
Previous Footnote 13: https://digitalhealthmonitor.org/stateofdigitalhealth23
The corrected sentence appears below:
“According to a recent survey of 2,000 U.S. adults^13^, more Americans trust social media and healthcare websites for advice over a medical professional, 94% trust AI to handle certain health-related tasks, and over half (52%) have consulted large language models like ChatGPT for medical diagnoses, reflecting the growing role of AI in personal healthcare decisions.”
Corrected Footnote 13: https://www.usertesting.com/resources/reports/consumer-perceptions-ai-healthcare
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.