Correction: PFOA biomonitoring and kidney cancer risk: a meta-analysis of serum levels
Francesca Spyrakis, Gioele Antonio Tiburtini, Stefania Bruno, Tommaso A. Dragani, Francesca Colombo
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 1
Figure 2Peer 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
TopicsChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes · Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research · Inflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
There was a mistake in Figures 2 and 3, as well as Supplementary Figures 2 and 4 as published. In the original version of the article, we mistakenly used the beta coefficient for the association between log-PFOA and kidney cancer from Steenland et al., 2022, instead of its OR value.
The corrected Figures 2 and 3 appear below. The correct Supplementary Figures 2 and 4, have now been replaced.
In the Abstract, “0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.89)” was wrong.
This has been corrected to read:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.69–1.60)”
In the Abstract, 0.98 (95% CI: 0.64–1.50) was wrong.
This has been corrected to read:
“1.36 (95% CI: 0.35–5.23)”
“0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.89)” was an error.
“(I² = 90%, P < 0.01)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.69–1.60)”
“(I^2^ = 77.4%, P = 0.012)”
“0.98 (95% CI: 0.64–1.50)” was an error.
“with no statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, i = 0.66).” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“1.36 (95% CI: 0.35–5.23)”
“with statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I^2^ = 77.0%, P = 0.013)”
“(P = 0.30 and P = 0.81, respectively)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 3:
“(P = 0.49 and P = 0.30, respectively)”
“0.59 (95% CI: 0.06–5.76)” was an error.
“(I² = 89%, P < 0.0001)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 5:
“1.05 (95% CI: 0.68–1.60)”
“(I^2^ = 77.5%, P = 0.012)”
“0.96 (95% CI: 0.64–1.45)” was an error.
“with no statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, P = 0.71).” was an error.
“(P = 0.37 and P = 0.58, respectively)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 5:
“1.37 (95% CI: 0.35–5.35)”
“with statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 76.9%, P = 0.013).”
“(P = 0.55, both)”
“0.75 (95% CI: 0.04–16.01)” was an error.
“with a significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 91%, P < 0.01).” was an error.
“(P = 0.74)” was an error.
A correction has been made to the section Results, paragraph 6:
“1.19 (95% CI: 0.92–1.53)”
“with no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 20.8%, P = 0.28).”
“(P = 0.66)”
The original version of this article has been updated.