Abstract
The original version of this article, published on 21 February 2020, unfortunately contained a mistake. The optimal Intensity-Skewness cutoff of the imaging biomarker is < - 1.5. Therefore, in the abstract, the last sentence of section “Results” should read: “A criterion of Intensity-Skewness < - 1.5, which indicated high tumor density, showed high specificity of 96% (sensitivity 46%) and 99% (sensitivity 53%) on predicting the mid/poor DFS group in the training and external validation cohorts, respectively.” The second key point should read: “An Intensity-Skewness of < - 1.5 has high specificity in predicting the mid/poor disease-free survival histologic patient group in both the training cohort and the external validation cohort.” And in “Results,” the last sentence of paragraph “Cutoff analysis” should read: “As shown in Fig. 4, the cutoff Intensity-Skewness <- 1.5 could achieve high specificity to predict the mid/poor DFS group, especially in the training and external validation cohorts which had specificity of 96% (sensitivity 53%) and 99% (sensitivity 46%), respectively”.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Lu, L., Wang, D., Wang, L., Linning, E., Guo, P., Li, Z., … Zhao, B. (2020, December 1). Correction to: A quantitative imaging biomarker for predicting disease-free-survival-associated histologic subgroups in lung adenocarcinoma (European Radiology, (2020), 30, 7, (3614-3623), 10.1007/s00330-020-06663-6). European Radiology. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07036-9
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.