In the above-named article by Caroccia B, Lenzini L, Ceolotto G, Gioco F, Benetti A, Giannella A, Ajjour H, Galuppini F, Pennelli G, Seccia TM, Gomez-Sanchez C, and Rossi GP (J Clin Endo Metab. 2024; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae411), there were errors in the Funding, Methods, and Results sections.
In the originally published article, the Funding section read, “This study was supported by the following research grant FORICA (The Foundation for advanced Research In Hypertension and CArdiovascular diseases) to G.P.R University of Padua DOR to G.P.R. and B.C.; and DIMA Excellence project funding (DImed and MAlattie Rare) the Department of Medicine, by the University of Padua.” In the corrected article, the funder “Consorzio per la Ricerca Sanitaria” was added to the Funding section: “This study was supported by the following research grants: FORICA (The Foundation for Advanced Research in Hypertension and Cardiovascular Diseases) to G.P.R.; CORIS-Consorzio per la Ricerca Sanitaria (project code ROSS_PRIV20_04); University of Padua DOR to G.P.R. and B.C.; and DIMAR Excellence project funding (DImed and Rare Diseases) of the Department of Medicine, by the University of Padua.”
In the Methods section, under the “Statistical Analysis” subsection, in the first paragraph, a sentence originally read, “They are presented as rate and mean + SD, or mean and 95% CI, as appropriate.” In the corrected article, “mean” has been corrected to read “median” and “95% CI” has been corrected to read “interquartile range (IQR).” The corrected sentence reads as, “They are presented as rate and mean + SD, or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate.”
In the Results section, under the “Identification of the Determinants of Sanger-Negative KCNJ5 Somatic Mutations” subsection, in the second paragraph, a sentence originally read, “This analysis showed that of all predictors, only the VAF remained in the model (Exp(B) = 0.849 (0.762-0.945) P = .003) and yielded an overall rate of correct classification of 93.8% (Fig. 5).” In the corrected article, a comma was added after “This analysis showed that” and the corrected sentence reads as, “This analysis showed that, of all predictors, only the VAF remained in the model (Exp(B) = 0.849 (0.762-0.945) P = .003) and yielded an overall rate of correct classification of 93.8% (Fig. 5).”
The article has been corrected online.
