Correction: A differential process mining analysis of COVID-19 management for cancer patients
Michel A. Cuendet, Roberto Gatta, Alexandre Wicky, Camille L. Gerard, Margaux Dalla-Vale, Erica Tavazzi, Grégoire Michielin, Julie Delyon, Julien Cesbron, Sébastien Lofek, Alexandre Huber, Sylvain Pradervand, Olivier Michielin
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
TopicsBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis · Customer churn and segmentation · Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
Eight individuals listed as authors in the published article do not qualify for authorship and are no longer included. These are: Nabila Ferahta, Jeremy Jankovic, Rita Demicheli, Hasna Bouchaab, Antonia Digklia, Michel Obeid, Solange Peters, Manuela Eicher. The correct author list reads:
“Cuendet MA, Gatta R, Wicky A, Gerard CL, Dalla-Vale M, Tavazzi E, Michielin G, Delyon J, Cesbron J, Lofek S, Huber A, Pradervand S and Michielin O.”
The Author Contributions Statement has been corrected to read:
“Clinical data collection: AW, MD-V, CG, GM, JD, JC, SL, AH. Methodological developments: MC, RG, AW, OM. Data analysis: MC, RG, AW, MD-V, CG, ET, SP, OM. Manuscript writing: MC, RG, CG”. All authors reviewed the article and approved the submitted version.
Following the withdrawal of authors, a correction has been made to the Acknowledgements.
“We acknowledge the medical teams that took care of the patients during the pandemic, in particular members of the Medical Oncology Division of CHUV.”
The Ethics statement was erroneously given as “The usage of retrospective patient data for this study was approved by the local Ethics Committee — Vaud Canton, Switzerland (Protocol No. 2019-00448). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.” However, the reference to this protocol was unnecessary. The correct ethics statement is:
Ethics Statement
This study qualifies as a quality control study according to the Swiss Human Research Act, in which case usage of retrospective patient data is not subjected to ethics approval. We did not include data of patients who explicitly refused the CHUV general consent for health-related data re-use.
The original version of this article has been updated.