Correction: Ultrasound findings suggestive of microscopic extranodal extension in papillary thyroid carcinoma
Noriko Miyamoto, Mitsuyoshi Hirokawa, Miyoko Higuchi, Maki Oshita, Makoto Kawakami, Hiroyuki Yamaoka, Makoto Fujishima, Akira Miyauchi, Takashi Akamizu
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
TopicsThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery · Head and Neck Anomalies
Correction: Journal of Medical Ultrasonics 10.1007/s10396-025-01573-w
In the sentence beginning ‘In the present study, node matting was detected…..’ in this article, the value ‘40.0%’ should have read ‘38.1%’.
In the sentence beginning ‘Node matting, irregular shapes, ill-defined jagged border…..’ in this article, the value ‘40.0%’ should have read ‘38.1%’.
In the sentence beginning ‘Examining two enlarged lymph nodes located adjacent to each other…..’ in this article, the value ‘40.0%’ should have read ‘38.1%’.
In Table 1 of this article, the data in the third row of the second column was incorrectly stated as “8 (40.0%)” and should have been “8 (38.1%)”.
In Table 1 of this article, the data in the ninth row of the third column was incorrectly stated as “9 (19.1%)” and should have been “9 (19.6%)”. The incorrect and the corrected versions of Table 1 are given below.
Incorrect Table: Table 1. Ultrasound findings of nodal metastasis with and without extranodal extension in patients with papillary thyroid carcinomaExtranodal extensionp valuePresent (n = 21)Absent (n = 46)Lymph-node size (mean)6–50 mm (22.3)6–44 mm (18.9)NSLymph-node size > 30 mm3 (14.3%)3 (6.5%)NSNode matting8 (40.0%)6 (13.0%) < 0.05Depth/width ratio > 0.518 (85.7%)29 (63.0%)NSIrregular shape12 (57.1%)6 (13.0%) < 0.0005Ill-defined jagged border9 (42.9%)0 (0%) < 0.0001Perinodal hyperechoic rim12 (57.1%)3 (6.5%) < 0.0001Loss of fatty hilum21 (100%)44 (95.7%)NSPunctate echogenic foci6 (28.6%)9 (19.1%)NSCystic area > 50.0%0 (0%)6 (13.0%)NSPure solid composition18 (85.7%)18 (39.1%) < 0.0005Increased vascular signal14 (66.7%)24 (52.2%)NSNS not significant
Corrected Table: Table 1. Ultrasound findings of nodal metastasis with and without extranodal extension in patients with papillary thyroid carcinomaExtranodal extensionp valuePresent (n = 21)Absent (n = 46)Lymph-node size (mean)6–50 mm (22.3)6–44 mm (18.9)NSLymph-node size > 30 mm3 (14.3%)3 (6.5%)NSNode matting8 (38.1%)6 (13.0%) < 0.05Depth/width ratio > 0.518 (85.7%)29 (63.0%)NSIrregular shape12 (57.1%)6 (13.0%) < 0.0005Ill-defined jagged border9 (42.9%)0 (0%) < 0.0001Perinodal hyperechoic rim12 (57.1%)3 (6.5%) < 0.0001Loss of fatty hilum21 (100%)44 (95.7%)NSPunctate echogenic foci6 (28.6%)9 (19.6%)NSCystic area > 50.0%0 (0%)6 (13.0%)NSPure solid composition18 (85.7%)18 (39.1%) < 0.0005Increased vascular signal14 (66.7%)24 (52.2%)NSNS not significant
The original article has been corrected.