Correction to: Mol Imaging Biol.
10.1007/s11307-020-01479-8
In the original article, some numerical values in the following paragraph were reported incorrectly:
“In fact, the direct method would give absorbed doses 5.6 (0.927 vs. 0.165 mGy/MBq) and 13.2 (1.88 vs. 0.142 mGy/MBq) times higher for uterus and ovaries, respectively, compared with the method we adopted. Smaller, but still relevant, overestimations of 65 and 95 % would be obtained with the direct method for other important organs, such as the liver (0.921 vs. 0.570 mGy/MBq) and the kidneys (0.580 vs. 0.298 mGy/MBq), respectively (full data not shown)”.
The paragraph has been updated to read:
“In fact, the direct method would give absorbed doses 5.5 (0.907 vs. 0.165 mGy/MBq) and 5.2 (0.731 vs. 0.142 mGy/MBq) times higher for uterus and ovaries, respectively, compared with the method we adopted. Smaller, but still relevant, overestimations of 62 and 94 % would be obtained with the direct method for other important organs, such as the liver (0.923 vs. 0.570 mGy/MBq) and the kidneys (0.577 vs. 0.298 mGy/MBq), respectively (full data not shown)”.
Footnotes
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1007/s11307-020-01479-8