In the published article, there was an error: the wording in the phenotype subsection was imprecise.
A correction has been made to 2 Materials and Methods, 2.5 Phenotyping. These sentences previously stated:
“A left ventricular wall thickness during end-diastole below 5 mm is regarded as within the physiological norm, and a thickness equal to or exceeding 6 mm is indicative of hypertrophy. It is noteworthy that reference ranges, incorporating considerations of body weight, were applied as an additional parameter (1). Cats with a wall thickness measurement between 5.5 and 5.9 mm outside the body weight-based reference interval, and with normal left atrial size, were classified as equivocal.”
The corrected sentences appear below:
“In the realm of feline cardiology, there is no universally accepted standard for determining the normal thickness of the left ventricular wall during diastole. It is overly simplistic to assume that a single numerical value can reliably distinguish between a healthy left ventricular wall and one affected by hypertrophy across all cats. The thickness of the left ventricular wall increases nonlinearly with body weight and is influenced by physiological factors such as hydration level and heart rate. Conditions like hyperthyroidism and systemic hypertension, which are common in older cats, can further impact left ventricular wall thickness, and the presence of these conditions were examined in cats, if suspected, before inclusion.
Nevertheless, for most cats that are not hyperthyroid or hypertensive, of average size and with a normal body condition (weighing between 3.5–5 kg), a left ventricular diastolic wall thickness of 5 mm or less is typically considered within the normal range, while a thickness of 6 mm or more suggests concentric hypertrophy. Cats with a left ventricular wall thickness falling between 5 and 6 mm were termed equivocal and were excluded from analysis. Cats outside this weight range were managed on a case to case basis with the aid of previously published 95% prediction intervals (1).”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.