This article [J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 066018 (2012)] was originally published online on 6 June 2012 with errors Table 2 on p. 4. The corrected table is reprinted below.
Table 2.
Clinical review result.
| Confocal screening result | ↓ | ↓ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histology screening result | Reviewer #1, Bar | |||
| Negative | Positive | |||
| → | Positive | 0 | 50 | |
| → | Negative | 23 | 2 | |
| Reviewer #2, Snaveley | ||||
| Negative | Positive | |||
| → | Positive | 0 | 50 | |
| → | Negative | 22 | 3 | |
In addition, the text discussing this table contained errors in the specificity percentage values for the reviewed results. The final paragraph of Sec. 5 has been corrected to read:
Table 2 shows the results of the clinical review. The two reviewers (Bar and Snaveley) evaluated all the confocal submosaics correctly except for two and three false positives, respectively. The calculated diagnostic value from Table 2 is 100% for sensitivity, and 92% and 88% for specificity for Bar and Snaveley, respectively.
This article was corrected online on 14 February 2014. It appears correctly in print.